what it means to be a christian (spotting a fundalmentalist christian)

[Le Libérer]

I read this in a blog and found it pretty much sums it up.

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


written by Charlotte Schnook

[redSHARP]

and that people is for the win! final score:
Reason & Logic united 1 to Religious FC 0

[Decolonize The Left]

Ouch...

- August

[Vlad tdf]

you are so right
I was christian before but i reallize that i don't bellive in nothing anymore!

[Bud Struggle]

Much could be said about blieving there's going to be a Revolution.

That all people are going to get along.

That without a government all things are going to somehow "workout."

That people are going to forget about religion.

That people are going to be distributed all things equally

That people will care about other people

That people will WANT to work without incentive

The list goes on. But, coarse and trashy understanding of people's belief systems is only that--coarse and trashy.

There's a lot of worthwhile about Communism and a lot worthwhile about Christianity. It's easy and fun to belittle other people's beliefs.

It's best to take the good of everything understood and add that to the sum of mankind's achievements--rather than stand at the top of the hill and say me, me, me, only my way is right. Man's understand of himself and his place in this world is a CULMULATIVE process. It's not an act of egotism and self righteousness.

Ridiculous post by the OP.

[Socialist18]

I read this in a blog and found it pretty much sums it up.

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


written by Charlotte Schnook

HAHA so true!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The difference between religion and revolution, TomK, is that Christians really believe those things on faith, while revolutionaries take revolution as a hypothesis.

The difference is subtle, but important.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The difference between religion and revolution, TomK, is that Christians really believe those things on faith, while revolutionaries take revolution as a hypothesis.

The difference is subtle, but important.
Yes, but if you have a hypothesis that says "X will happen in the future" without any expiration date, that hypothesis is not falsifiable, and must be taken on faith.

Naturally, this applies not only to revolutionaries, but also to most people who are serious about their political ideology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, but if you have a hypothesis that says "X will happen in the future" without any expiration date, that hypothesis is not falsifiable, and must be taken on faith.

Naturally, this applies not only to revolutionaries, but also to most people who are serious about their political ideology.

OK, if nothing remotely revolutionary happens by say, 2050, then I'll consider the Marxist hypothesis falsified to all intents and purposes.

[Dean]

2051.

Whoever bets the highest number without going over wins...

A NEW society!
Features streamlined organization, worker control and all the latest luxuries for the working man on the go! And for those golden years, we have a complex welfare system complete with healthcare and entertainment! Got young children? Not to worry! Totally remodeled office spaces and banks all across the country now serve as childcare facilities. Features comprehensive education system. Some assembly required. Side effects may include purges, gulags and imperial aggression, but most people experience a healthy system of cooperation. Communism is not right for everybody. Consult with your manager to see if Communist(R) brand Revolution is right for you!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

2051.

Whoever bets the highest number without going over wins...

A NEW society!
Features streamlined organization, worker control and all the latest luxuries for the working man on the go! And for those golden years, we have a complex welfare system complete with healthcare and entertainment! Got young children? Not to worry! Totally remodeled office spaces and banks all across the country now serve as childcare facilities. Features comprehensive education system. Some assembly required. Side effects may include purges, gulags and imperial aggression, but most people experience a healthy system of cooperation. Communism is not right for everybody. Consult with your manager to see if Communist(R) brand Revolution is right for you!

Er, woot?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

OK, if nothing remotely revolutionary happens by say, 2050, then I'll consider the Marxist hypothesis falsified to all intents and purposes.
IMO, that kind of attitude is precisely the reason why Marxism has declined so much. People look at the 20th century and think, "well, communism hasn't triumphed, so I guess Marxism is wrong and we should just give up."

2050 is frankly much too soon. I don't expect revolution by 2050. We need to take a more long-term view of history. Feudalism lasted much more than a couple of centuries, after all. Why couldn't capitalism do the same? We should be prepared for a struggle of several generations.

I would consider the Marxist hypothesis falsified only if either (a) capitalism lasts more than 1000 years unchanged, or (b) capitalism changes so much that either the bourgeoisie or the working class no longer exists (this could happen if either of them was replaced by robots, for example).

[Decolonize The Left]

Placing a date on the revolution, or arguing over said posited date, is absurd.

In the first place, Marxism can be used to analyze general trends in economic development, not precise movements at specific times.

In the second place, the whole purpose of "revolutionaries" is to raise class consciousness, not debate over whether or not the revolution will happen in 2012, 2050, 2300, or if there will be steady revolution from 2030-2140, etc... It's futile, a waste of time, and childish.

- August

[Rosa Provokateur]

I read this in a blog and found it pretty much sums it up.

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


written by Charlotte Schnook
Great stuff, where'd you find it?

[Dust Bunnies]

Correction, God impregnated Mary, the Holy Spirit inspired her to say yes. (TomK, confirm that please)

[Bud Struggle]

Placing a date on the revolution, or arguing over said posited date, is absurd. Why is that? If the Revolution's going to happen it should happen in some forseeable future. And that future should be reasonably specified--otherwise it's just fantasy, like the idea that someday through evolution men will grow wings.


In the first place, Marxism can be used to analyze general trends in economic development, not precise movements at specific times. No one's asking for a specific moment--but surely a general idea of when the Revolution might occur should be in order.


In the second place, the whole purpose of "revolutionaries" is to raise class consciousness, not debate over whether or not the revolution will happen in 2012, 2050, 2300, or if there will be steady revolution from 2030-2140, etc... It's futile, a waste of time, and childish.

- August Leaving the Revolution so open ended means the revolution might never really happen and if it doesn't happen--well what is Marxism without a Revolution?


Posted by NoXion. The difference between religion and revolution, TomK, is that Christians really believe those things on faith, while revolutionaries take revolution as a hypothesis.

The difference is subtle, but important. I think that's kind a mixed bag. There are plenty of Christians that take the existance of God as a hypothesis. I rather think I do. I don't KNOW that a God exists--but I think that there is a chance that he might exist (and I fully understand that others might think otherwise) but the chance seems to be a reasonable option to me. On the other hand I see "hope" that the Revolutionmight happen as just that--hope. I could maybe guess there might be a revolution in the future--but that it would end in "Communism" seems to me to be one of a thousand endings that a revolution could have.

I don't see history as a set of obvious occurances that in anyway follow a pattern that anyone can predict. Who would have guessed that in the rather socially (though not economically) advanced Weimer Germany a monster might arise out of no where and take that country out of the grasp of further liberalization and throw it into a new Dark age of hate and bigotry of such staggering proportions? On the other hand who would have though that Napoleon III would have been followed by something as interesting as the Paris Commune? But then againg who would have thought in the glitzy Second Empire there were so many Anarchist and socialists running around?

I just see history as too quirky to predict.

And Dust Bunnies--yup, that's pretty much it. :)

[Rosa Provokateur]

I just had a thought about "fundamentalist" christians, they always break the fundamental lessons of Jesus. Love thine enemy, turn the other cheek, give to those who ask of you, bless those who curse you; they never follow any of it:D

[Decolonize The Left]

Why is that? If the Revolution's going to happen it should happen in some forseeable future. And that future should be reasonably specified--otherwise it's just fantasy, like the idea that someday through evolution men will grow wings.

Nonsense. The "revolution" is an uprising of the working class - it will happen when the working class identifies as a class (this is called class consciousness).

There is no need to posit when the revolution will happen - this is what childish Che t-shirt wearing liberals do. It achieves nothing and gives people like you fodder to critique what is otherwise a highly coherent and cohesive philosophy, unlike... say... capitalism.


No one's asking for a specific moment--but surely a general idea of when the Revolution might occur should be in order.

This statement only demonstrates your ignorance. There is ample material as to "a general idea of when the Revolution might occur," namely when the working class identifies as a class and revolts against the capitalist class. You are asking for a date. Only fools attempt to do this - you know, the 2012 people and such. You're not one of those people are you Tom?


Leaving the Revolution so open ended means the revolution might never really happen and if it doesn't happen--well what is Marxism without a Revolution

You almost sound sad... :crying:
There will be a revolution. I'm saying that arguing over when that will happen is pointless and stupid.

We, the working class, make it happen. We don't debate over when it will occur.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

There will be a revolution.
- August

Exactly how do you KNOW that? Not guess, not hope for, but KNOW.

[Trystan]

Exactly how do you KNOW that? Not guess, not hope for, but KNOW.

Well, you don't. But there will be some kind of change in the future, naturally.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, you don't. But there will be some kind of change in the future, naturally.

That is a very fair answer.

[Killfacer]

or as i like to say :

FUN! - DA MENTALIST!!!!

(i dont actually say that)

[Decolonize The Left]

Exactly how do you KNOW that? Not guess, not hope for, but KNOW.

I'm not sure if you're arguing epistemology here or just clinging to the last scraps of semantics.

If you are arguing epistemology, I do not "know" in the three-fold (belief/justification/truth) sense. I was using know in the common language sense, as in I have justified belief that something is the case.

For example, if I said to you Tom: "I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning."
Would you really say:
"Exactly how do you KNOW that? Not guess, not hope for, but KNOW."
I don't think so. You'd accept that I was using a term in its common language context and probably agree with me that the sun will rise.

You can see that you really have no argument against me, you merely wish to cling to the idea that what I'm saying isn't entirely, 100%, no-doubt, truthful. This is what all reactionaries do when they are confronted with reality - they sense that they are backed into a corner and start saying "well you don't know it's true!" They appeal to semantics and Cartesian skepticism as though it actually has any merit in the form of an argument.

So I do know that the revolution will happen - I have justified belief.

That's a better position to hold than say... religion... which only has belief.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not sure if you're arguing epistemology here or just clinging to the last scraps of semantics.

If you are arguing epistemology, I do not "know" in the three-fold (belief/justification/truth) sense. I was using know in the common language sense, as in I have justified belief that something is the case. Nothing justified about it--you have belief and only belief, your justification is your hope and nothing more. Revolutions have come and gone and besides fo a few the were actually Communist and lasted a few days--you have nothing to base your justification on. The MAJOR "Communist" Revolutions of our day have almost all turned out to be duds and actually have gone quite "retro" in their economic beliefs.


For example, if I said to you Tom: "I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning."
Would you really say:
"Exactly how do you KNOW that? Not guess, not hope for, but KNOW."
I don't think so. You'd accept that I was using a term in its common language context and probably agree with me that the sun will rise. I know the sun rises every day so there is a good deal of justified belief in the idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow. As I said above there never has been a workable Communist Revolution that has stood the test for more than a few days--there is no history of Communist countries arising out of the ashes of Capitalism (though there is a good deal of history of Capitalist countries arising out of spiritually and economicly bankrupt Socialist countries.)


You can see that you really have no argument against me, you merely wish to cling to the idea that what I'm saying isn't entirely, 100%, no-doubt, truthful. This is what all reactionaries do when they are confronted with reality - they sense that they are backed into a corner and start saying "well you don't know it's true!" They appeal to semantics and Cartesian skepticism as though it actually has any merit in the form of an argument. No skepticism (except for the obvious.) No dualism. Just show me the long and fruitful history of Revolutions producing Communism--in the same way you can show me how the sun comes up every day.


So I do know that the revolution will happen - I have justified belief.

That's a better position to hold than say... religion... which only has belief.

I see no difference in being a Fundamentalist Christian and a Marxist--Even to the point that Christ rose from the dead once and stayed on earth for a couple of weeks--and there was the Paris Commune--that stayed on earth for a couple of weeks too. :)

[Trystan]

So I do know that the revolution will happen - I have justified belief.


You know because you have a belief. Right . . .

[Faction2008]

I just had a thought about "fundamentalist" christians, they always break the fundamental lessons of Jesus. Love thine enemy, turn the other cheek, give to those who ask of you, bless those who curse you; they never follow any of it:D

I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ - Gandhi

[Trystan]

So I do know that the revolution will happen - I have justified belief.

That's a better position to hold than say... religion... which only has belief.

- August

But just to elaborate a bit: people had a justified belief that the world was flat. Does this mean that they knew that the earth was flat?

No, it does not.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ - Gandhi
It's an unfortunate truth, it took a true follower of God like Gandhi to point it out.

[Decolonize The Left]

But just to elaborate a bit: people had a justified belief that the world was flat. Does this mean that they knew that the earth was flat?

No, it does not.

Ugh. I already differentiated between the epistemological use of the word "know" and the commonsense use of the word "know."

You are arguing a point I have already noted and dismissed. For, if you care to know (irony intended), according to your use of the word "know" (that being the epistemological use), one cannot "know" anything and hence the word ceases to be functional. Well done.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Nothing justified about it--you have belief and only belief, your justification is your hope and nothing more. Revolutions have come and gone and besides fo a few the were actually Communist and lasted a few days--you have nothing to base your justification on. The MAJOR "Communist" Revolutions of our day have almost all turned out to be duds and actually have gone quite "retro" in their economic beliefs.

The justification is in the theory - but you've been told this (and argued against it) countless times. I do not wish to engage in another leftist vs. TomK debate over the merits of Marxism - we were speaking about religion. You were comparing it to Marxism which is amusing seeing as how religion is based in metaphysical and immaterial assumptions, and Marxism is based on Historical Materialism.


I know the sun rises every day so there is a good deal of justified belief in the idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow.

Your circular logic is unwelcome. Try again.


As I said above there never has been a workable Communist Revolution that has stood the test for more than a few days--there is no history of Communist countries arising out of the ashes of Capitalism (though there is a good deal of history of Capitalist countries arising out of spiritually and economicly bankrupt Socialist countries.)

Such good logic Tom... there are countless things/theories which didn't succeed/realize over periods of time, but one cannot dismiss them as illogical/irrational based on this series of events. You fail to make any argument of substance.


No skepticism (except for the obvious.) No dualism. Just show me the long and fruitful history of Revolutions producing Communism--in the same way you can show me how the sun comes up every day.

My analogy was in regards to your epistemological use of the word "know," which you have now abandoned. The analogy is no longer apt.


I see no difference in being a Fundamentalist Christian and a Marxist--Even to the point that Christ rose from the dead once and stayed on earth for a couple of weeks--and there was the Paris Commune--that stayed on earth for a couple of weeks too. :)

I understand that you do not see a difference, which is demonstrative of your failure to understand both Christianity and Marxism - For if you understood either, you would understand that they are not in any fashion similar. :)

- August

[Rosa Provokateur]

For if you understood either, you would understand that they are not in any fashion similar. :)

- August
Marxism and christianity are compatible in this; their founders were both hated by the State, they both wanted justice and sacrificed all they had to get it, and they both changed the world for the better and will continue to inspire people to push for a better kind of society.

[Trystan]

Ugh. I already differentiated between the epistemological use of the word "know" and the commonsense use of the word "know."

You are arguing a point I have already noted and dismissed. For, if you care to know (irony intended), according to your use of the word "know" (that being the epistemological use), one cannot "know" anything and hence the word ceases to be functional. Well done.

- August

You do not know in either sense of the word. And your definition of "commonsense" knowledge is a poor one. Yes, like you say - ugh.

[Decolonize The Left]

Marxism and christianity are compatible in this; their founders were both hated by the State, they both wanted justice and sacrificed all they had to get it, and they both changed the world for the better and will continue to inspire people to push for a better kind of society.

Disregarding all your personal opinions which fill this quote, that only makes them similar, not compatible.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

You do not know in either sense of the word. And your definition of "commonsense" knowledge is a poor one. Yes, like you say - ugh.

Really? It's poor? So, you are actually saying that it's not commonsense to say: "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."?

- August

[Bud Struggle]

The justification is in the theory - but you've been told this (and argued against it) countless times. I do not wish to engage in another leftist vs. TomK debate over the merits of Marxism - we were speaking about religion. You were comparing it to Marxism which is amusing seeing as how religion is based in metaphysical and immaterial assumptions, and Marxism is based on Historical Materialism. My point here is that belief in Marxism is no different than a belief in God. Infact they are exactly the same. Neither is based on any demonstrable reality--both are based on faith and nothing more. Marxists are Fundamental Christians that just happen to believe in something else. Marxism is a religion--one without a god--but a religion none the less.



Such good logic Tom... there are countless things/theories which didn't succeed/realize over periods of time, but one cannot dismiss them as illogical/irrational based on this series of events. You fail to make any argument of substance. The best theory is that such a thing isn't possible. After all those tries you have to admit that failure is becoming a habit. If you want to see that failure happening before your eyes--just follow the goings on in the now Socialist Nepal. They are falling into the exact same pattern as all other Socialist countries. I'm sure there are many reasons for it--but the best is that's that Marxism doesn't work.



I understand that you do not see a difference, which is demonstrative of your failure to understand both Christianity and Marxism - For if you understood either, you would understand that they are not in any fashion similar. :)

- August I think Marxists real failure is to see that "history" deals with ONLY the past. The future is predictions, fortune telling, crystal ball reading and guessing. The future may bring a lot of things--but we can be sure of none of them. But you of course can still have your "faith." ;)

[Killfacer]

This is fucking moronic. You have a go at christians for "knowing" god exists. Yet now your making an equally idiotic claime and saying it will occur, it HAS TO OCCUR. No it doesnt, there is no evidence that it will happen apart from what a dead philosopher theorised.

[Trystan]

Really? It's poor? So, you are actually saying that it's not commonsense to say: "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."?

- August

Completely different thing. It's commonsense to say it, but it is not something you know for certain (yeah, sorry for arguing epistemology, but it needs to be done).

As for the revolution, well . . . there are certain characteristics in our society that suggest that it might happen. A justified belief - yes. Knowledge? No. This is Platonic tripe, isn't it?

[Decolonize The Left]

My point here is that belief in Marxism is no different than a belief in God. Infact they are exactly the same. Neither is based on any demonstrable reality--both are based on faith and nothing more. Marxists are Fundamental Christians that just happen to believe in something else. Marxism is a religion--one without a god--but a religion none the less.

Perhaps you should keep a dictionary on hand when you post...
Religion and Marxism are fundamentally different. Why?

Religion is immaterial, metaphysical, and irrational. It deals fundamentally with a soul, spirit, force, deity, higher being, or self after death. It posits all these things without any justification or evidence.

Marxism is material, physical, and rational. It deals fundamentally with material reality and the mechanisms which are at work. It posits nothing, and draws all conclusions from sound logic and reason.

Just because you, TomK, say they're the same doesn't mean they are - in fact, the dictionary claims otherwise...


The best theory is that such a thing isn't possible. After all those tries you have to admit that failure is becoming a habit. If you want to see that failure happening before your eyes--just follow the goings on in the now Socialist Nepal. They are falling into the exact same pattern as all other Socialist countries. I'm sure there are many reasons for it--but the best is that's that Marxism doesn't work.

Right... so when anyone tries to make/do something, and they failed innumerable amounts of times, they should quit? According to this totally perverted logic, anything which doesn't succeed upon first or second attempt is worthless.


I think Marxists real failure is to see that "history" deals with ONLY the past. The future is predictions, fortune telling, crystal ball reading and guessing. The future may bring a lot of things--but we can be sure of none of them. But you of course can still have your "faith." ;)

You're right, history only deals with the past. That's why it's called 'history.' Nice argument there... the point is that history casually determines the present and the future. So it makes sense to draw inferences, and conclusions, based upon the general trends of history. In other words, it is logical to study history in an attempt to understand the present conditions of humanity, as well as the possible future conditions.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Completely different thing. It's commonsense to say it, but it is not something you know for certain (yeah, sorry for arguing epistemology, but it needs to be done).

According to epistemology, nothing can be known for certain - hence the word looses it's meaning and is useless.

Your argument is absurd. We use the word "know" all the time, generally to mean having justified belief. So yes, one cannot 'know' anything epistemologically, but this is entirely irrelevant and meaningless - for if I cannot know anything, how can I know that I cannot know anything?

You see? Just drop it..


As for the revolution, well . . . there are certain characteristics in our society that suggest that it might happen. A justified belief - yes. Knowledge? No. This is Platonic tripe, isn't it?

I already said this...

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Perhaps you should keep a dictionary on hand when you post...
Religion and Marxism are fundamentally different. Why?

Religion is immaterial, metaphysical, and irrational. It deals fundamentally with a soul, spirit, force, deity, higher being, or self after death. It posits all these things without any justification or evidence. Nope, religion claims those things. Those things might not exist or may be radically different than what you say religion is. Religion claims.


Marxism is material, physical, and rational. It deals fundamentally with material reality and the mechanisms which are at work. It posits nothing, and draws all conclusions from sound logic and reason.Nope, Marxism claims those things. Those things might not exist or may be radically different than what you say Marxism is. Marxism claims.


Just because you, TomK, say they're the same doesn't mean they are - in fact, the dictionary claims otherwise... Nope, both ideologies CLAIM. We know nothing for certain--for you to CLAIM otherwise is just foolish.




Right... so when anyone tries to make/do something, and they failed innumerable amounts of times, they should quit? According to this totally perverted logic, anything which doesn't succeed upon first or second attempt is worthless. Ah! First or second. then there's a number to it. Excellent point. So, if if fails a hundred times is it a failure? Let's count up the failures of Communism and see where that magic number lies.




You're right, history only deals with the past. That's why it's called 'history.' Nice argument there... the point is that history casually determines the present and the future. So it makes sense to draw inferences, and conclusions, based upon the general trends of history. In other words, it is logical to study history in an attempt to understand the present conditions of humanity, as well as the possible future conditions.

- August So History predicted Hitler or Napoleon or Stalin? There are wild cards thrown into history all of the time. But if we take your statement as somewhat true--history seem to be predicting Social Democracies through the day to day socialization of the world.

There's no "Revolutions" on the horizon. Well, there was Nepal--but if you that's some template of the future---:lol:

Actually, pay attention to what's going on in Nepal--and watch it slide away. :(

[Decolonize The Left]

TomK, your arguments are like that of a child - here's why:

In regards to your differentiating between claiming and knowing, I've already discussed this. I've already noted that this isn't an argument because if we adopt your position, we cannot use the word "know." Yet you still repeat it as though it has significance. How very religious of you...

As to your argument towards numbering successes and failures, you fail to note:
- That not all revolutions are the same.
- That not all revolutions are the same.
- That not all revolutions are the same.
So you're claim that we can judge the 'successes' of a communist revolution by anything which calls itself such is short-sighted, illogical, and unjustified.

And finally, there is no "wild cards" in history, just as there is no "plan" to history. There is merely a series of events, most of which are casually determined by previous events - this can be demonstrated. One can study these events from a certain perspective and draw conclusions about processes taking place, and then hypothesize future scenarios based on these observations (this is what Marx did, it's also what scientists do). These hypotheses are verified or not according to the outcome of events. A fine reading of Marxism will reveal that the theory is sound, just because you haven't seen 'the revolution' is irrelevant.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, your arguments are like that of a child - here's why:

In regards to your differentiating between claiming and knowing, I've already discussed this. I've already noted that this isn't an argument because if we adopt your position, we cannot use the word "know." Yet you still repeat it as though it has significance. How very religious of you...

I was discussing the points you make. I took them as they came. :rolleyes:


As to your argument towards numbering successes and failures, you fail to note:
- That not all revolutions are the same.
- That not all revolutions are the same.
- That not all revolutions are the same.
So you're claim that we can judge the 'successes' of a communist revolution by anything which calls itself such is short-sighted, illogical, and unjustified. So you hope forever? Well if that isn't FAITH, I don't know what is.


And finally, there is no "wild cards" in history, just as there is no "plan" to history. There is merely a series of events, most of which are casually determined by previous events - this can be demonstrated. One can study these events from a certain perspective and draw conclusions about processes taking place, and then hypothesize future scenarios based on these observations (this is what Marx did, it's also what scientists do). These hypotheses are verified or not according to the outcome of events. A fine reading of Marxism will reveal that the theory is sound, just because you haven't seen 'the revolution' is irrelevant.

- August

That still leaves us with Social Democracy through attrition. The Revolution is "Jesus in the Sky."

If you want to "believe" brother please "BELIEVE."

But it's faith not reason, not logic. It superstition of the materialist sort. It's faith.

Hallelujah!

[Trystan]

You see? Just drop it..



Very well. But if you think that saying that you "know" the revolution will happen is the same as knowing the sun will rise tomorrow, you are quite frankly deluding yourself.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It's an unfortunate truth, it took a true follower of God like Gandhi to point it out.

Gandhi was a complete and utter prick. Not someone to be put in any anarchists good books.

[Decolonize The Left]

TomK and Trystan,
I can see why this isn't going anywhere. You both cannot understand what I mean by 'know' until you thoroughly read and analyze Marxism and anarchism. These theories are not, like religion, stories told to make meaning. They are rooted in material analysis of history and the mechanisms of society. They are fundamentally grounded in reason, logic, and the physical processes of this world.

If I observe something happening, and work out the mechanisms which make it function, I can make rational deductions as to what will happen in the future. I can claim to 'know' certain things about those deductions. That is all I'm saying.

- August

[Rascolnikova]

There's one essential difference between Christianity and revolution; revolution will happen in the future--if, and only if, we make it happen.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

There's one essential difference between Christianity and revolution; revolution will happen in the future--if, and only if, we make it happen.
Unless of course one isn't a mythological Christian. In that case, Christ's coming will happen if, and only if, we make it happen.

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

[Killfacer]

This stupid. You cannnot make a guarentee that a revolution has happen. Thats just fucking moronic. What is your evidence anyway? A book written ages ago by a group of old men. Hmm, sound like anything else you know?

[Rascolnikova]

This stupid. You cannnot make a guarentee that a revolution has happen. Thats just fucking moronic. What is your evidence anyway? A book written ages ago by a group of old men. Hmm, sound like anything else you know?

Help me out here.

What are you saying?

[Jazzratt]

I believe he's saying that we can't declare revolution inevitable because our one and only source for it is Das Kapital and because Das Kapital is older than him it's an ancient text. Obviously our views do not come from any kind of study of history and the forces involved, nor have we come to our conclusions by observing struggle between classes, none of that lefty bollocks we're all just slavish followers of one book by Marx. Our ideologies have not been updated at all in the years after Das Kapital was penned. At all.

[Killfacer]

I believe he's saying that we can't declare revolution inevitable because our one and only source for it is Das Kapital and because Das Kapital is older than him it's an ancient text. Obviously our views do not come from any kind of study of history and the forces involved, nor have we come to our conclusions by observing struggle between classes, none of that lefty bollocks we're all just slavish followers of one book by Marx. Our ideologies have not been updated at all in the years after Das Kapital was penned. At all.


Don't be so fucking pathetic. You know that isn't what i meant. Yes there could well be a revolution in the near future and yes your veiws do come from a study of history. However, how this means you can guarentee there is going to be some kind of communist revolution evades me.

Comparing communism with any kind of religion is stupid and incorrect but so is claiming that there has to be a revolution in the future.

The majority of people on this site do not slavishly follow one book, i never said that. Stop being an idiot.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Don't be so fucking pathetic. You know that isn't what i meant. Yes there could well be a revolution in the near future and yes your veiws do come from a study of history. However, how this means you can guarentee there is going to be some kind of communist revolution evades me.

Comparing communism with any kind of religion is stupid and incorrect but so is claiming that there has to be a revolution in the future.

The majority of people on this site do not slavishly follow one book, i never said that. Stop being an idiot.

I know, Marx was so dogmatic about there necessary being a revolution. See, right from the communist manifesto he clearly says that.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.


He's clearly saying the only option is revolution. That's why he guarantees it.

[Jazzratt]

Don't be so fucking pathetic. You know that isn't what i meant.

Looked like it to me...


Yes there could well be a revolution in the near future and yes your veiws do come from a study of history. However, how this means you can guarentee there is going to be some kind of communist revolution evades me.

It's called historical materialism and, very very basically, it goes like this: the history of the world since class society began has been one of struggle but ultimately, also, of progress. As each epoch has come the conditions for the lower classes involved in the struggle to that epoch have improved immensly (compare serfs with proles for example). Extrapolating from this, it is therefore extremely likely [if not actually inevitable] that this trend will continue and we will end up with a society more favourable for the proleteriat (i.e communism). It's really that simple.


Comparing communism with any kind of religion is stupid and incorrect but so is claiming that there has to be a revolution in the future.

It's not an actual claim that revolution is absolutely inevitable - if it were we'd simply be sitting back and waiting for it. It's that the cumulation of class struggle is going to result in communism. That is, of course, if the world hasn't been blown up by greedy capitalist shitcockles in the near future.


The majority of people on this site do not slavishly follow one book, i never said that. Stop being an idiot.

Really so I misinterpreted this:



What is your evidence anyway? A book written ages ago by a group of old men.


then? Don't be dishonest.

[Killfacer]

Looked like it to me...



It's called historical materialism and, very very basically, it goes like this: the history of the world since class society began has been one of struggle but ultimately, also, of progress. As each epoch has come the conditions for the lower classes involved in the struggle to that epoch have improved immensly (compare serfs with proles for example). Extrapolating from this, it is therefore extremely likely [if not actually inevitable] that this trend will continue and we will end up with a society more favourable for the proleteriat (i.e communism). It's really that simple.



It's not an actual claim that revolution is absolutely inevitable - if it were we'd simply be sitting back and waiting for it. It's that the cumulation of class struggle is going to result in communism. That is, of course, if the world hasn't been blown up by greedy capitalist shitcockles in the near future.



Really so I misinterpreted this:



then? Don't be dishonest.


1. Thats the point i was trying to make, i agree the it is likely but i disagree that it is a fact that it will occur (the revolution)
2. I disagree with with the way people talk about it as inevitable. As though they will not have to lift a finger because its going to happen anyway. Certainly in the current climate i really cannot see a revolution happening and if the future is anything like the present (which, admittedly, it usually isn't) then i cannot see one happening in the near future.
3. Yes you did misinterpret it. Stop misinterpeting stuff.