i believe in God...

[Purple]

i know communism is against religion and all, but the problem is that i both believe in God and Communism... i dont believe in any particular religion, im against religion, but im with the Faith itself, in the spirit...

[Just Joe]

prepare for a tirade from redstar2000.

but on the Communist/Religion note. You can be religious and be a Communist. You can even be a Marxist and be religious. But you can't be a Marxist-Leninist and be religious. Lenins 'three components of Marxism' stress Historical Materialism, which would go against a lot of Christians views.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Even if it was against it you said you don't believe in ORGANISED religion, no hierarchy, just personal standards...that, as far as I know, is not discouraged.

A lot of people here would like to use communism to end religious disputes, by teaching tollerance and understanding, not killing off a large proportion of the worker.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In communism, I would imagine that the public manifestation of religion would not be permited. If you want to believe in god, nobody can stop you, but I imagine such beliefs would be rare in communism. Reson being that religion is counter revolutionary, it is an enemy of the worker, it subjugates people, and only works against the unification of the proletariat. It's a tool of oppression of the bourgeoisie. Do not submit yourself to religion!

[Just Joe]

what utter garbage.

are you aware the STALINIST Soviet Union did not ban religion? organised or other.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from Just Joe on 5:15 am on April 5, 2003
what utter garbage.

are you aware the STALINIST Soviet Union did not ban religion? organised or other.

Are you aware that Stalinist soviet union was a socialisticaly skewed, beurocratic, totalitarian, bourgeisie-centered, and not very communistic?

[Ymir]

Explain how it was 'bourgeoisie centered', and Stalinism is only the continuation of Marxist-Leninism.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Ymir on 11:39 pm on April 4, 2003
Explain how it was 'bourgeoisie centered', and Stalinism is only the continuation of Marxist-Leninism.

I agree. Futhermore, as to what Ymir is effetivley saying, if Stalinism is bourgeois-centred, you are in effect suggesting that Marxism-Leninism is bourgeois-centred. You are anti-working class if you articulate as a ridiculous theory as this.

[Blibblob]

There are two ways to look at it. One it was capitalist, and just under the guise of communism. And two, its a required step towords pure communism. The double enslavement of the proletariat, and teaches equality through enforcement. Uh, yeah... its a backwards step, try again.(i never saw the enforcement of equality)

Oh yeah, and God is not bad, thats quite a prejudice statement there. Now, the church, that is bad. Capitalist organization all the way through.

(Edited by Blibblob at 6:58 pm on April 4, 2003)

[Just Joe]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 11:26 pm on April 4, 2003

Quote: from Just Joe on 5:15 am on April 5, 2003
what utter garbage.

are you aware the STALINIST Soviet Union did not ban religion? organised or other.

Are you aware that Stalinist soviet union was a socialisticaly skewed, beurocratic, totalitarian, bourgeisie-centered, and not very communistic?


Are you aware the irony of you labeling a sytem totalitarian in one post, then calling for the banning of religion in the other?

In Marxs' 'Demands of the Communist Party', he calls for the seperation of Church and State.

and please lads, stop throwing around phrases as insults when they are wrong. calling Stalins Russia Capitalist just because you don't like it is stupid.

[Angelic Darkness]

WELL to change the subject slightly, i'm a paganist. Its not looked well on by the majority of the population, but I love nature. I can go camping and be completely happy sitting by a blazeing fire and stare off into space. Takeing a walk out into the deep woods, and just exploreing. And before you all scare "TREE HUGGER!!!" i'm no hippie, but i also dont agree with deforestation.

Concerning religous views and communism... Dont let anyone tell you that you can't believe and god and be a communist. Do what you want to do, and label yourself accordingly.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from Ymir on 5:39 am on April 5, 2003
Explain how it was 'bourgeoisie centered'


for starters, it's imperialistic tendencies were not very communistic. The power was not at all in the hands of the people of the soviet union, perhaps bourgeoisie-centered was a bad description, though the worker clearly did not have the power.

To clear some things up, I never said that god was, bad i don't believe that he exists, so i don't see how I can judge him. If you want to believe in god, great, i don't care, did i ever say i did?


(Edited by Victorcommie at 7:44 am on April 5, 2003)

[Xvall]

Angelic. Why would you not call yourself a tree hugger? Be a tree hugger and be proud of it.

[Angelic Darkness]

I dont consider myself a tree hugger because i know that trees must be cut down. The human race is on the increase of 90 million per year, that's alot of home. What I dont agree with is the corperate hungry assholes, that in a blink of an eye, destroy natures finest creations for a profit. The same assholes who think that there's nothing wrong with deforestation.

[Angelic Darkness]

You all may want to take note that I'm a very idealistic person, and if I feel strongly about something then dont get me started or i'll talk till the end of time ( or i'm baned either way ;) ) Sorry, my mouth tends to get the runs alot, if you know what i mean.

[redstar2000]

JustJoe, shame on you! I don't deliver "tirades"...I present carefully reasoned, thoughtful, intelligent arguments. :biggrin:

"...i both believe in God and Communism." -- an average dude.

Well, dude, when it comes to belief, you can believe anything you want.

What you can't do is be a Marxist and be religious...Marxism is atheistic.

"Believing" in communism is like "believing" in "heaven" or "santa claus". It doesn't require the use of reason.

To examine the historical and economic evidence and decide on the basis of reason that communism (Marxism) makes sense is very different from "believing in communism". The first involves serious and thoughtful effort; the second can be easily substituted for any belief and, in turn, any belief can be substituted for it. And there's no limit: you can believe in "God" and communism and homeopathy and alien abductions and telepathy and astrology and...whatever. Belief is unconstrained by reason.

Without jumping into the morass of the "real" nature of the USSR, I do think people should realize that Stalin, et.al., were not consistently anti-religious. Some churches were torn down, most were not. Some were shut down and converted into other uses, most were not. The subsidies that the old Czarist regime furnished the Russian Orthodox Church were reduced, not eliminated. The number of clergy was reduced, but the clergy was not abolished and remained on the government payroll. There was even at least one seminary to train new priests at government expense.

For all the efforts in schools to reduce the impact of religion on the young, parental indoctrination of the young with religious ideas obviously continued throughout the existence of the USSR. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin, born in the early 1930s, were duly baptized on the eighth day after their births according to the rituals of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The classic film Alexander Nevsky, made in the late 1930s, was not only an ultra-patriotic saga of "good Russians" vs. "evil Germans" but also emphasized "glorious Russian Orthodoxy" vs. "evil Catholic fanaticism". It was one of Stalin's favorite films.

I think that 21st and 22nd century communist societies will do better. Religion's public presence will be completely terminated. And the indoctrination of small children with parental religious prejudices will be seen as serious child abuse.

It's wrong to lie to small children!

:cool:

[Umoja]

But kids get indoctrinated anyway. Don't you think kids need to be taught that "communism is good" and "God isn't real" is indocrination? Or is it not like that when it goes with your version of the future status quo?

[kylie]

fuk

[Invader Zim]

My answer to the existance of god is: -

God can make anything right because he's omnipitant.


If he can make any thing he can make an unmovable box.

If he is omnipitant he can do any thing.

But how can he move the unmovable box if he made it unmovable????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?

[Dhul Fiqar]

That's the central contradiction of omnipotance as a concept. Because of the exclusionary nature of choice as we understand it, it is impossible to do able to do anything or everything, you eliminate possibilities as you prove others.

In any case, I think there is 'something' binding the world together that you might call 'God' if you saw it, but I think we're part of it along with all the other atoms in the universe. That's what LSD does for ya ;)

--- G.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God is a giant blue octopus with millions of tenacles, and his angels are killer Mantis's

[Anonymous]

you can be communist AND religious...
its whats called the "christian socialist"...

my grandfather was one.. so anyonw who criticises this will have his heart pulled off and eated raw by me...

just keep your religion to yourself... and do not force it to other people...
you are free to believe in what you want... and everybody should respect it..

this is, if yor religion respects the people....
no racism, fascism, segregation, machism, anti-semetism etc etc

[Dhul Fiqar]

"Ralph, Jesus did not have wheels....."

--- G.

[Solzhenitsyn]

In communism, I would imagine that the public manifestation of religion would not be permited. If you want to believe in god, nobody can stop you, but I imagine such beliefs would be rare in communism. Reson being that religion is counter revolutionary, it is an enemy of the worker, it subjugates people, and only works against the unification of the proletariat.

"In the [Soviet] cities perhaps %20 of the people are atheist but in the [Soviet] countryside, there is not an atheist to be found" - Internal Memo of the League of the Militant Godless, 1937

[redstar2000]

That "Internal Memo" is extremely interesting and shows, I think, how ineffective the struggle against religion really was in the old USSR.

Since I don't think "God" directly intervened to "preserve the faith", it seems to me that the most reasonable explanation is a combination of incompetence and lack of political will.

To the point raised by Umoja, I would say: imagine a society where no one under the age of 15 has ever heard of the supernatural...how many would ever bother to take an interest in such matters?

Some would, of course. And for them, we'd have a special course or even courses in comparative religious history...training the next generation of scholars.

The small child is presently confronted with a single religious faith without any standards to judge it by or compare it with others...and so becomes a believer. By the time s/he is old enough to realize alternatives exist, it takes considerable effort to root out those childhood convictions and either adopt a different religion or, even more difficult, junk the whole concept.

But if the first exposure to religion is in adolescence and the whole absurd panorama is presented, the idea of following a particular faith would appear as the obvious absurdity that it really is.

As to telling small children that "communism is good", well, that's true, isn't it? :cheesy:

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:35 am on April 5, 2003)

[Catch22]

oh who cares if you belive fine then believe just don't get up on some soap box and start preaching.

[Blibblob]

Ow, that made me think. Nice one Redstar, but isnt that called brainwashing and propaganda. Or maybe anti-brainwashing!!

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Blibblob on 6:09 pm on April 5, 2003
Ow, that made me think. Nice one Redstar, but isnt that called brainwashing and propaganda. Or maybe anti-brainwashing!!

Brainwashing isn't brainwashing if it's something you agree with, so "brainwashing" kids into being atheist communists isn't really brainwashing.

[Blibblob]

If they are really young kids it is. They dont know what they agree with, which is what the US uses to keep people away from their brainwashing. You can be brainwashed into agreeing with something, yet not actually agree with it. Sometimes the brainwashing wears off, if you dont truly agree with it, but not without side effects. But once a person hits their teenage years, brainwashing becomes harder. I didnt say it wasnt possible, but its harder. But at the same time, its even harder to break from brainwashing if thats what youve been taught since you were a wee one.

So, in conclusion, it is brainwashing if they are young, later its become winning a debate.

[Moskitto]

i think i was being sarcastic when i said that brainwashing isn't brainwashing.

look, everyone brainwashes kids, atheist parents are going to tell their children that god doesn't exist, capitalist parents will tell their children that communism is evil, fascist parents will tell their kids that the white race is superior, and the kids will believe it, because magically enough, little 3 year old kids think their parents know absolutely everything. By banning one form of brainwashing and not annother will not solve the problem of kids being brainwashed. How do you solve this problem? You could take all children away, teach them how to read and lock them into boxes where they're supplied with food, appropriate stimuli for their ages and an internet connection and let them teach themselves all their morals.

Or annother solution is to let parents teach their kids their own morals and leave morality (bar anti-racism morals) out of public.

[Zelena Hracka]

OK, that's fine. My question is WHY do you believe in god? It's like believing in Santa Claus, Fairies, or Trolls. The evidence for the existence of the aforementioned is equivalent to the evidence for the existence of god.
But as I said, you can believe in whatever you want.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Zelena Hracka on 9:38 pm on April 5, 2003
OK, that's fine. My question is WHY do you believe in god? It's like believing in Santa Claus, Fairies, or Trolls. The evidence for the existence of the aforementioned is equivalent to the evidence for the existence of god.
But as I said, you can believe in whatever you want.

Good question...

Tell me do you believe in the tooth fairy?

[Blibblob]

I believe in the platepus!

[Solzhenitsyn]

Since I don't think "God" directly intervened to "preserve the faith", it seems to me that the most reasonable explanation is a combination of incompetence and lack of political will.

You obviously have never heard of the League of the Militant Godless and know nothing about Soviet policies toward the religious. At some point, the Bolsheviks saw that outright atrocities against believers would not ultimately win the day. The next step was to "reform" the Orthodox Church by infiltrating it with "priests" cum Checka agents that preached that communism was the priniciple goal of Christianity and introduce various novelities like the Gregorian Calender, married bishops and a "reformed" liturgy. It was called the "Living Church Movement" and was emphatically rejected by an overwhelming majority of Russian clergy and laity. The Patriarch of Moscow, Tikon, was arrested and tortured by the Checka for his resistance to this movement.

Their next response was to "liquidate" the clergy and in this phase the Church went from having around 150,000 clergy (already having lost 50,000 in previous atrocities) to around 2,000, the balance of which just "got disappeared." Most were murdered out right but some went into crypsis. This policy also failed.

So the most severe and onerous restrictions were placed on the remaining priests and belivers, in general, such as Paschal curfews, the prohibition of infant baptism on child "welfare" grounds, Sunday roll calls and randomly forcing people to violate fasting periods, planting informers at religious services, random religious questioning and, the ultimate in totalitarianism, fines and imprisionment were levied against the "crime" of "belief in God." contrary to Soviet law. A special organization of citizen-informers was set up in 1926 to enforce these laws and report violators to the OGPU/NKVD and it's name was the League of the Militant Godless. They had other functions as well amd formed violent mobs to attack religious processioners and ransack churches and engage in other criminal activities that promoted atheism. They also were charged with distributing millions of "missionary" leaflets and approving school curriculum. The League maintained lists of known believers that were repeatedly assaulted by violent mobs formed for that purpose by the League.

The League of the Militant Godless was abolished in 1938 by Stalin and it's leadership sent to the GULAG on the grounds that is was counter-productive at best and was probably unpurposely formenting anti-Communist sentiment. Stalin also needed the Church when it became clear the Russian people were not going to resist the Germans merely to preserve Marxist-Leninism. The Soviets kept trying to root out Christianity over the 45 years but never with any lasting success. Despite the Soviet Union's best efforts the proportion of believers in Russia probably never dropped below 50% . Indeed around 65% in modern Russia identify themselves as Orthodox and a further 15% are said to believe but refuse to publicly identify themselves as such because deception toward Government officals about religious belief lingers in Russian society from the Soviet rule. It's not hard to see why.

[redstar2000]

It's not a matter of "brain-washing" in the abstract.

We teach small children the language that we speak...so we can talk to them and they to us.

We teach them some of the basics of the culture we live in--don't stick your finger in that electrical outlet, kid!

We teach them to use a toilet...and worry if they don't pick it up as quickly as we'd like.

Unfortunately, many parents who believe the lie of religion pass it on to their kids...not unlike the lies of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. are passed on.

What should be done about that in a revolutionary society?

It seems to me that the answer is obvious. Sooner or later, and the sooner the better, it must become the general social consensus that teaching small children about religion--especially the "truthfulness" of a particular religion--is child abuse.

This will not be easy...and perhaps will have to be done in measured stages.

But either we are serious about eliminating this pernicious evil from human society or we are not.

I'm serious.

:cool:

[redstar2000]

I very rarely submit two posts in a row...but my response to Solzhenitsyn's account is that I only wish it were accurate.

Whatever the details, it is clear that the USSR was far too lax in fighting Christianity.

:cool:

[Anonymous]

Obviously freedom of religion and the sanctity of the family are foreign cocepts to you marxists filth.

Parents should be allowed to teach their children whatever they want.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 10:34 am on April 6, 2003
Obviously freedom of religion and the sanctity of the family are foreign cocepts to you marxists filth.

Parents should be allowed to teach their children whatever they want.

What the hell are you talking about? Are children supposed to be treated as their parents molding clay?

Oh, now I see your username, nevermind. Quite expetced coming from a Cappie.

[Umoja]

But religion is an esoteric concept. Would it be child abuse to teach kids about a certain form of art? A certain Philosophy for psychology? Besides, children would ask about God. The only reason atheistic thinking exist is because certain people saw how fucked up religions were. The only reason religions exist, is because people are creative enough to make up lots of fluffy stuff.

Anyway, I just lost that train of thought. Personally, I believe in God, because it gives me more books to read about and philosophy to think about. Can I prove any of it's true? Nope. But I can't prove Plato was right either.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I believe in "the divine" (whatever it may be), because I have been swallowed up by it and submerged in it temporarily.

There is no evidence to disprove a diffuse life-force running through the universe, in fact it can be proven through physics.

--- G.

[Angelic Darkness]

God.....
Everyone says that the evidence doesn't exist of a higher power, most people who dont believe in god crave for the proof. I believe in finding your own truths. The evidence of gods existance is within everyone, no mater how good natured or chaoticly inclined. The reason you can't sit down and use some mathematical solution to show that god exists is because the existance of a higher power goes beyond any simple math equation. I believe in many strange things, some based on nothing but speculations and half trueths, but something like this isn't like that. God could be nothing more then the simple hope of someone beyond this world is up there guideing them in their life. You see you have to create your god, or thats what i believe. The reason there are so many religous factions is because everyone can create their own god.

The god I have created to believe in, is nothing more then someone familiar to look forward to after i leave this life. Just the simple hope in believing something like that can give people their reason for going on. I have never seen a miracle so great, or any "act of god" so profound to make me believe there's actually some "man" sitting up there above the clouds watching down on us. God sits within the hearts of all who chose to believe there is one.

To the person who remarked about god being compared to the tooth fairey, or santa clause is right but in the wrong way. Think if no kids believed in anything like that. Imagine a world where when kids lost teeth, they just saw it as a burden and tossed the tooth out the nearest window. Or christmas time was nothing more then a meaningless time of exchangeing presents. When we are kids I think we need things like that to give joy to our lives. It gives them a false hope that there's something out there, just out of sight, but still there, that can inspire the imagination and the mind. If its foolish to believe in things like this, then do you also consider running around shooting at imaginary people with cap-guns is a waste of time? Children are children. Why ruin the world that tooth faires live in, or dreams come from. Without the simple things like these, our world would lose the simple thing we call hope. The simple thing like dreams, fantasy, imagination. The day that imagination dies, is the day that something dies in each and every one of us.

To the person who said something about its not right to teach a kid about god, well who the hell are you to judge? You think a kids gonna be able to understand every religous aspect out there? Understand the "miracles" that inspire the faithfull to teach others what they have learned? A kid is created by 2 people, do you not have the right to give your own painting a title? To give your own block of clay life, and animate it into something more? I know that it's not right to refer to a living being a thing, but what is a kid to do? Just like when setting a house rule that you have to follow into you can get your own place, when your taught to follow a religion you have to follow it untill you can choose for yourself. Just think about it...

Dont get me wrong though, about parents teaching their kids things. Parents are their to be nothing more then a guide to a better path. At one point in a childs life a parent has no other choice then to dictate what a child learns or believes. When a 2 year old believes that running down the street is an act of cleanlyness a parent has to step in and force their own belief's on the child. However, what some parents, probaly like the parents of some of our posters, forget is that at some point instead of a teacher, their children need a guide. Nothing is learned when you have someone forceing ideals down your throat. Remember that.

[Angelic Darkness]

How's that for some trippy shit :cool:



(Edited by Angelic Darkness at 8:39 am on April 6, 2003)

[El Che]

I have no knowledge of the supernatural. If you do....... What can I say? You believe in supernatural entities, great but on what do you base that belief? You need answer that question to your self and not to me. On what do you base your beliefs? Surely you don´t go around making random assertions.

That is one issue. Another issue is religious repression on a political level. I express my disgust for such a notion both morally and intellectually.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Take some Acid, and tell God I said hi! :biggrin:

[Moskitto]

It seems to me that the answer is obvious. Sooner or later, and the sooner the better, it must become the general social consensus that teaching small children about religion--especially the "truthfulness" of a particular religion--is child abuse.

forcing any philosophical opinions onto children is child abuse, even atheism.

[Angelic Darkness]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 9:28 am on April 6, 2003
Take some Acid, and tell God I said hi! :biggrin:


LOL, I hear Salvia is good for seeing who your real god is... look it up www.erowid.org :cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Way ahead of you my friend, erowid is my second home :biggrin:

--- G.

[redstar2000]

"Parents should be allowed to teach their children whatever they want." -- Dark Capitalist

Somehow, I have this picture of DC teaching his kids how to be cannibals. How to kill and dress "the meat", 1001 good recipes for human flesh, etc.

That's the logic of it -- if you think that children are property.

"I know it's not right to refer to a living being as a thing..." -- Angelic Darkness

Then why do you do it? On what grounds?

Joke all you wish about drugs, AD, but it looks to me like all you have to offer kids is a fucking bad trip!

Comparing religious indoctrination to "a house rule" (whatever that may be) is absolutely idiotic. Concluding therefrom that making new rules of your own when you move out is the same as escaping from some fairly serious brainwashing doesn't even meet the feeble standard of idiocy that the premise does.

It clearly takes a major effort to overcome childhood religious conditioning...and many people cannot do it. It is no good to tie a kid to a wheelchair until s/he's 15 and then untie the ropes and say "Ok, kid, now you can walk as much as you want." How many will be able to walk? How many won't even try? Particularly, if they see that most of the people around them are also in wheelchairs?

It is not a matter, Moskitto, of "forcing" children to be philosophical atheists. The matter of "god" simply does not arise in ordinary life...it's not necessary to say anything about things that don't exist.

In the real world, of course, kids are exposed to many influences, including the observation that some people wallow in god-shit. Then, it would be necessary to explain things like delusion, deception, manipulation, the non-existence of the super-natural, etc.

It would be done in the same way that we explain that there is no such thing as a ghost...or the boogie-man that hides in the closet at night. It's not "a big deal". And you can leave the light on if it makes you feel better.

The matter of childhood imagination is something of a diversion from this thread...but let's look at it briefly. It doesn't fall out of the sky; kids appropriate the materials for their imaginative efforts from the culture that surrounds them...they don't "make it up" out of nothing.

It's generally thought--among civilized people--that tons and tons of sex and violence are not real great materials for small children to exercise their imaginations on. How much there should be and what the proportions should be is debatable--I personally would suggest more sex and less violence. But kids are not going to "make up" a full blown religion all by themselves...nor do I see any reason to encourage them to do so.

Tell me how it is supposed to "help kids" to let them lie awake at night imagining what "Hell" must really be like.

I fully understand--though I know from experience that it won't stop you from telling me again and again and again--that you god-suckers find it outrageous that your kids should be protected from your delusions...it's a direct attack on your own validity. You seem to think that if you can't make your kids into You v.2.0, that your life has been a failure.

I hear it all the time: "I want my kids to choose for themselves"--the rest of the sentence is unspoken--"as long as they make the same choices I did." Because if they make the same choices, then that validates the choices you made.

All of us, if we raise children, are subject to that temptation and must learn to resist it as much as we can. To be anything just because your parents were is dumb. Whenever you hear people say "I was raised to believe XYZ and that's why, in fact, I believe XYZ" -- you've just encountered another brain in a wheelchair...and one who wants to make damn sure that their kids' brains are in wheelchairs.

Since I know that it is too much to ask that religious parents refrain from inflicting such stupidities on their kids, they will have to be prevented from doing so.

It will take a while, perhaps a long while, but it will be done.

:cool:



(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:23 am on April 6, 2003)

[Moskitto]

It is not a matter, Moskitto, of "forcing" children to be philosophical atheists. The matter of "god" simply does not arise in ordinary life...it's not necessary to say anything about things that don't exist.

if parents are religious they are likely to have religious texts in their houses, children would therefore be likely to read these and find other religious texts to study and possibly become religious at their own accord, of course the atheist dominated social services would put the parents into prison, but what else could they do? The government could put a ban on all "incorrect" religious texts like in countries such as Saudi Arabia which turns your lovely, tolerant paradise into a fundamentalist regime, but what else can we do to stop the spread of the evil multi-faith society.

[Moskitto]

of course, if children only read religious texts and aren't told about the religion by there parents, they are far more likely to turn into bible thumping fanatics who follow it all to the letter, but such is the price we have to pay to clense the world of the more liberal religious viewpoints.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

my guess is that once society loosens up a bit, folks will just stop taking religion so seriously, the children will see how ridiculous it is, (that's what happened to me) and religion may just wither away slowly.

[Moskitto]

in an intelligent society where there are proper religious studies teachers, not just people who preach crap at little kids, there should not be a need for government intervention in religion.

I have a friend who when I met him was an absolute devout atheist, he now studies AS-level religious studies and discusses biblical philosophy better than most christians, although he does not identify himself with any faith as such, he writes essays argueing both for and against the existance of god.

If younger children were taught the way our lessons were taught when we reached upper school, being more about what are the main arguements for and against the existance of god, having class discussions on moral and philosophical issues, instead we just did projects praising gods creation of light :rollseyes: we didn't learn really about other religious beliefs, the christians didn't "believe" that Jesus was cruxified, instead Jesus "was" cruxified, of course most people were put off anything to do with religion by these lessons and instead of becoming people willing to discuss their beliefs with others, they turned into people who would just beat up someone because they said "I am a Christian." However I really don't think most of them are mature enough for that, maybe if school children were generally divided into mature and immature and the immature ones given crap lessons to do, and the more mature ones given interesting lessons.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Victorcommie,

All Marxists believe in a god. That god's name is Big Government.

[Blibblob]

What the fuck did that mean?

[hazard]

religion is far more anti capitalist than it is anti communist

at least in theory, ha

that is, just about every religion in the world rejects the material world in favour of a spiritual one. as such, the capitalist infatuation with material is rendered ineffectual when confronted by religious zealots. take a look at the trend of middle eastern religious states in opposition to capitalism. there is zero to no containment of any of these people, thanks to their anti-material religious beliefs.

personally, I kinda hope for a synthesis between communism and the anti-religious components of religion. however this may only be a pipe dream. I just think that both religion and communism share a common enemy in capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Moskitto, if you own a firearm and have small children in your home, what do you do? Unless you want a dead kid, you lock up the firearm where the kids can't get to it.

Why not the same thing with "holy books"?

In addition, not one kid in a million is going to even try to read a "holy book" on his/her own...they are amongst the most boring and impenetrable books ever written.

No, the way that small children are indoctrinated is by (1) parental "instruction" and (2) secondarily, "children's books, videotapes, cds, etc." that are simplified versions of a particular religion's mythologies. The second can be prohibited altogether...the same way child pornography is prohibited.

But the first is crucial. I propose zero tolerance for "god talk" to kids under 12. At 12, if they express an interest in the subject, then, as I said, an introduction to the whole panorama...the whole package of religious beliefs from 4000BCE to the present...with no suggestion that any one of them is "truer" than any other...they are all false, however interesting they might be.

I think these steps, along with the complete absence of religious architecture, public references to religion, etc., should be sufficient to kill the old bird off...though I freely concede it may take a century or even longer.

I hope it will not be necessary to put very many people in prison for "god talk" to kids (child abuse). And, as I've noted in other threads, prisons do not have to be the hell-holes they are under capitalism...I have no sadistic interest in inflicting pain and humiliation for the sheer "joy" of it.

But if we are serious about finally freeing the human species from this grotesque monstrosity called religion, then we must do whatever it takes.

It won't go away by itself.

:cool:

PS: it's always amusing to hear pro-capitalists rant against the "worship of big government" -- they're constantly calling for a 50% reduction in the size of the "Defense" Department, aren't they?


(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:54 pm on April 6, 2003)

[hazard]

the worst child abuse known to humanity is the exploitation of children through capitalist regimes

despite child labour laws, children are still being exploited every hour of every day on tv, in newspapers, in magazines, in ads and in movies

they are cheapened as sources of labour and degraded into selling products

worse than the capitalists who use children for their labour are their parents who allow it to happen

[Boris Moskovitz]

There is a huge problem in those nations. The families are very poor, and they really need each single pennies they can get. Don't you get it? I know it's not cool, and it's really sad. But some nations are THAT poor...

[Umoja]

So I guess we should make most forms of philosophy illegal as well, and only teach capitalism as being flawed, when the glorious revolution comes about, correct? Certain ideas should be restricted, because a ruling group decides that? Forced Atheism?

I've talked to some atheist on belief.net, and many of them point out how they find the idea of God comforting, on an abstract level. The religion itself, doesn't need to even be correct, it just needs to bring comfort. If you want a feather pillow, but you get one filled with equally soft wool, and you know what it's really made of, does it matter, because it'll comfort your head regardless.

[peaccenicked]

The belief in god in itself is a scientific problem for Marxists merely because that the conept of god has no roots in empirical evidence. The belief in god is not a democratic problem in itself in that thre is no way that genuine Marxists wish to impose atheism or abolish theism.
There might be violent religious practices that we if had majority support would like to abolish like clitoris removal.
Though even the latter is contoversial among libertarian leftists who put freedom of conscience above all. Personally I would find that very difficult to enforce and would look at ways to promote health education. I certainly would like to see Clitoral removal (http://members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html) removed as a cultural and religious practice.
However, the issue of religion is one by which Marxists
understand in terms of historical materialism. We understand religion as a crutch for the poor. It is so ingrained that people can kick away the crutch and still believe. Many of the poineers of Socialism did not cast off christianity but sought away to reconcile differences.
Even today Liberation theology is still influential and one cant help wondering if it has reached the Pope on the issue of war.
Nevertheless, a universal, worldwide communism, which has ended poverty for all has for marxists a scientific status. A place where god and the notion of god is replaced by a community awareness of the distresses and pains of individuals. So that man no longer screams to the heavens but has 100% faith in the decency of his fellow man or woman. This is a level of cultural potential
that science cannot rule out.

[hazard]

i dont see how there can be a problem with marxists believing in God for lack of empiricle evidence

empiricism is such an old, pre-marxist philosophy anyway

the problem is that empiricism is one of the first pro capitalist philosophies devised. its principles are foundationally materialistic. since marxism are anti material, it is unclear why peacnikked believes that they would cite empircal evidence as a conclusive reason why marxists don't believe in God.

who claimed that "religion is the opiate of the massess"? many on this board think it was marx, but it wasn't. it was that scrambled brained maniac nietzche who said that. however, in his saying that, he did identify a socialtist criticism of religion. niettzhce's point wasn't socialist, tho. he was simply reworking a socratic idea that only philosophers should rule, and the massess were nothing but a bunch of dumb herd like animals. that is clearly not socialist.

[Anonymous]

The majority of people are a bunch of stupid fucking herd animals. That's one of the reasons why I'm opposed to direct democracy.

Nietzsche was, in many ways, a genius.

[hazard]

nietzche had some insight, but he is overrated

the vast majority of his ideas he stole from plato

however, I think the "opiate" spiel is good. marxists should have a prblem with opiation and not its religious subset. obviously, religion is no longer the opiate of the massess. now it is TV.

[peaccenicked]

Hazard.
There is a difference between empiricism and empirical evidence. Empiricism is the slavery to facts, to detail.
However, facts and details are important to historical development. There are no facts or details that provide evidence for god.
Marxism is anti-greed, it seeks to champion both the spiritual and material needs of the working class.
Marx did call Religion the ''opium of the masses''.
It is in the "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right..
However,your opinion of Nietzsche is spot on.

[hazard]

I know for a fact that nietzche said that religion is opium

I know for a fact that MARX did not say this in the communist manifesto

where did I say it? I have wholeheartedly adopted this idea as a socialist one, but I don't think marx actually stated that. let me know so that I can chekka chekka chek it out.

[peaccenicked]

here (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:L6SyNlJHXJMC:csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-DFJ/law.htm+%27it+is+the+opium+of+the+people%27+hegel% 27s+philosophy+of+right&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

[hazard]

thanks

now who said it first? nietzche or marx?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Nietzche never said it and you have not provided any evidence to show us that he did. What he said was "God is dead", you're confusing the two.

--- G.

[Umoja]

Neo-Platonic thought is cool, but I'm not sure if that has to do with Plato.

[redstar2000]

On occasion, Umoja, I find your posts very difficult to grasp.

"...we should make most forms of philosophy illegal..." Where do you get that idea? I don't even understand what that would mean.

For one thing, almost no one takes an interest in most of the old philosophies now anyway. Are you suggesting that if a small circle of, say, neo-Platonic mystics arose, that we communists would have to suppress them? Why?

As long as they don't start mind-fucking their kids with that crap, what difference would it make?

Or do you mean that universities would no longer have "history of philosophy" courses? With maybe 10 people who are interested enough to take them? I don't see why communists would want to do that. The histories would be critical of course...none of the old philosophies would be taught "as if they were true." But I see no reason to utterly erase them from human memory...any more than religion would be utterly erased. There would still be historians of religion and scholarly studies of religious books...it just wouldn't be a matter of concern in ordinary life.

"many atheists find the idea of god comforting, on the abstract level." Whaaa?? :confused:

That is too bizarre for comment.

-----------------------------------

"The majority of people are a bunch of stupid fucking herd animals." -- Dark Capitalist

Does DC really stand for "Dark Cannibal"? I mean, what does one do with "herd animals" if not kill and eat them?

:cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

I'm pretty sure Umoja was using irony when he said that comment about banning religion, that "we should only teach about the flaws of capitalism" and etc.

I'm rather sure his point was the exact opposite...

--- G.

[Moskitto]

you get very few religious people nowadays who want parents banned from teaching their own children, however there are frightening numbers of atheists want to control what parents teach to their children. atheists do not believe in free choice with regard to religion, atheists do not accept that they might actually be wrong, atheists do not accept that they too don't really know, atheists are blind to the evolution of the other side, atheists are blind to the idea of a theory, atheists only think in terms of black and white. it would probably shock most atheists to realise that there has never been a democratic government practicing anything other than secularism.

(Edited by Moskitto at 4:55 pm on April 7, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Yes, there is a fundamental problem with the atheist movement, because meny of it's proponents appear to be going through existential chrisis and use their denial of the devine to deal with uncertainty inherent in life. Nothing wrong with that, just interesting from a psychological standpoint.

It seems to me the only logical standpoint is being an agnostic, since the dispute of religion vs. atheism is basically about things that cannot be imperically proven one way or the other. So how can anyone "know"? :)


--- G.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

there has never been a democratic government practicing anything other than secularism.


Not shocked, a bit reluctatnt to belive this claim, but not shocked. There have only been democracies for the last couple of centuries anyways. (except Rome & Greece)

[hazard]

maybe I am wrong about who said "opiate of the massess". it don't matter though

I think that those who reject religion because marx said it was an opiate are rejecting it for the wrong reasons. marx's problem wasn't with religion, but with opiation. he claimed that religion was being used to control the proletariates. in other words, the problem was the way religion was being used as an anti-revolutionary control method.

since we are dealing with capitalists, who always "improve" their modes of production, the opiation has been similarly "improved". as a socialist it is no longer fitting to reject religion because it ONCE was an opiate. instead, we must reject the MODERN OPIATES. and at the top of that list is TV.

there is much to learn from religion as a socialist, especially asceticism and anti-materialism. now that capitalism has been removed from the religious equation, there are few problems to be had with it. and remember, marx did identify a sub set of socialists based upon the franciscan mode of religious devotion.

[Umoja]

Yeah, sorry Redstar, I often don't note when I'm being sarcastic. Most people have a hard time telling when I'm being sarcastic when I talk to them face to face.... so uhh... Yeah. I wasn't being real to real with that one.

[redstar2000]

Moskitto's True-False Quiz on Atheists & Religion

1. "there are frightening numbers of atheists [who] want to control what parents teach to their children."

False. Most atheists don't grasp that children are not property to do with as you wish. Further, the major proponents of "home schooling" are religious fundamentalists who wish to deprive their children of any scientific knowledge of the real world.

2. "Atheists do not believe in free choice with regard to religion."

False. Most atheists do believe in free choice with regard to religion. Only the most radical communist atheists want to get rid of religion entirely.

3. "Atheists do not accept that they might actually be wrong."

True. Since there's no evidence that any religion is anything but claptrap, atheists assume correctly that there are no gods.

4. "Atheists do not accept that they too don't really know."

True. We know.

5. "Atheists are blind to the evolution of the other side."

False. Atheists are generally better informed on the historical evolution of religion than believers. However, atheists are not deceived as to the contents of the package by the addition of a shiny new wrapper.

6. "Atheists are blind to the idea of a theory."

Leave this one unanswered. It's not a real question.

7. "Atheists only think in terms of black and white."

True. There is/are no god/gods. Until verifible evidence is produced by believers, the default position is a clear one.

8. "There has never been a democratic government practicing anything other than secularism."

False. There's no recorded instance of any government, democratic or otherwise, that did not make totally unjustifiable concessions to religious believers and religious institutions. From tax exemptions to outright subsidies, every government (yes, even Cuba and Vietnam) allows the rot to continue and even spread.

How did redstar2000 do on this test? :cheesy:

------------------------------------

Dhul, I suppose we're all free to engage in psychological speculation as to the "real" motives for people's positions on controversial questions.

But it would seem to me that atheists as a group are apparently more comfortable with the uncertainties of life than believers. We have no "daddy" in the sky who is "looking after us" and will make sure that everything "turns out for the best". :o

As one scientist put it, "the more we learn about the universe, the more utterly indifferent to our existence it seems to be." That fact seems to cause brain-cramps in some folks' heads...but atheists would have no problem with it at all.

Why should anything give a shit about us besides us?

Agnosticism is, in my view, just a way of side-stepping the necessity of taking a clear position on the matter. It is a "comfortable" response to an uncomfortable question. When you say "I'm an agnostic", people will leave you alone and not bother you...until it's heretic-hunting time again. Then you and I both go to the stake!

:cool:

[englandsgay]

its all about having faith man. its funny how you prove the bible right when you talk/act just like the wicked/abominable people in it. the whole point of religion isnt that you can know something WITH YOUR MIND. its that you know it WITH YOUR HEART because of feelings you get and all.

so all im saying is that by just arguing against it intellectually doesn't prove anything because its not the way your supposed to go around getting it. thats the main sticking point of religion anyway and they all address you in whatever texts they have and describe that mindset down to a tee.

thats all im sayin....

[redstar2000]

Hazard, it's not a case of Marxists rejecting religion "because" it's an opiate...it's actually worse than that.

The primary reason for rejecting religion is that it is plainly untrue. Believers have had 60 centuries or more to produce some verifible evidence for their beliefs and have universally failed to do so.

But the social role of religion in the class struggle, especially in the modern era, has been one of forceful advocate of reaction. Whether it's the catholic Opus Dei, the protestant evangelicals, the muslim and jewish and hindu fundamentalists...everywhere in the world today, religion lines up on the side of reaction and oppression (the occasional and limited exceptions notwithstanding).

They are universally publicly sworn enemies of communism by their own words!

Do you think they're just kidding around...having a good laugh at our expense?

And, may I add that the exercise of searching for scraps of commonality between religion and communism in this or that "holy book" is degrading. Where is the honor in seeking justifications for our own views in the camp of one of our major enemies?

It is as if we were to seek justification for communism in the doubts of George Soros (big-time currency speculator) on the sustainability of globalization.

I agree with you, hazard, on the "opiate" function of the modern entertainment complex...and it is indeed worthy of the sharpest attacks we can make. By giving people a vicarious form of "living", it distracts them from the fact that their real lives are mostly shit.

Nonetheless, it is "easier" to turn off the television than it is to turn off the god-talk pumped into you when you were a kid and didn't know any better.

There is a difference.

:cool:

PS: I pass over the suggestion from englandsgay that we "think" with an organ not evolved for that purpose...though it seems unlikely that much could come from such an attempt. Rather like trying to run with your arms, I would imagine. :cheesy:



(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:10 am on April 8, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well, I for one see a clear distinction between organized religion and spirituality. I would never argue for organized religion, but spirituality is more of a human quality than anything else. Before we even organized ourselves into cultures we were looking to the sky in awe and getting a very profound feeling of 'correctness', for lack of a better word...

I mean, surely most of us here are familiar with the feeling (however temporary) that the world is hanging together in such a completely implausable way that it must be the one and only way things can be. That matter is energy, energy is matter, and we are all made of the same atoms, floating around the same space.

To me that is a beautiful feeling, both spiritual in nature and a starting point for actual practical love of your fellow man, which for me is the basis of humanism and socialism.

--- G.

[Moskitto]

The primary reason for rejecting religion is that it is plainly untrue. Believers have had 60 centuries or more to produce some verifible evidence for their beliefs and have universally failed to do so.

False The whole Point on Belief in God is that there is no evidence, it's called faith

But the social role of religion in the class struggle, especially in the modern era, has been one of forceful advocate of reaction. Whether it's the catholic Opus Dei, the protestant evangelicals, the muslim and jewish and hindu fundamentalists...everywhere in the world today, religion lines up on the side of reaction and oppression (the occasional and limited exceptions notwithstanding).

False both the Catholic and Anglican churches TODAY are opposed to the war.

They are universally publicly sworn enemies of communism by their own words!

False Raul Casto, Daniel Ortega, John Ball, Thomas More, RedCeltic and many others are all religious believers and socialists.

Most atheists don't grasp that children are not property to do with as you wish. Further, the major proponents of "home schooling" are religious fundamentalists who wish to deprive their children of any scientific knowledge of the real world.

False You're saying that parents aren't allowed to answer a question "what created us" with "God did" then following to explain what God is. You are also saying that parents must tell their children that religious people are dillusional, with no evidence, Nazis believe that parent should tell their children that Blacks are inferior, likewise, with no evidence. Conclusion, your policy = nazism.

False. Most atheists do believe in free choice with regard to religion. Only the most radical communist atheists want to get rid of religion entirely.

False Communists such as yourself want to stop religion, ie. destroy it. Infact, the only atheists I have met who can accept anyone can have a legitimate belief in God are, Dark Capitalist and Stormin Norman

True. Since there's no evidence that any religion is anything but claptrap, atheists assume correctly that there are no gods.

False God is a theory to explain why the universe was created. Do you believe in electrons? no one has proved they exist, anyone with a chemistry degree will tell you this, Do you believe in the fluid mosaic model? that has no proof, anyone who knows the slightest thing about it will tell you this. Do you think schools and parents should be banned from teaching these theories?

True. We know.

Exactly, you don't know, so why better than anyone who has a different opinion?

False. Atheists are generally better informed on the historical evolution of religion than believers. However, atheists are not deceived as to the contents of the package by the addition of a shiny new wrapper.

False Atheists do not accept that religious believers can be anything but a bunch of fanatic christian fundamentalists, you have shown this yourself several times.

Leave this one unanswered. It's not a real question.

Don't understand it do we? I am saying that you fail to understand that a theory is an idea to find a solution to a problem we don't actually know the real awnser to, it is a model to provide a solution to a question, for example, relativity, the fluid mosaic model, theism, communism, quantum physics, the induced fit hypothesis are all theories.

True. There is/are no god/gods. Until verifible evidence is produced by believers, the default position is a clear one.

False Come to think about it, I have never heard your theory that god doesn't exist, i've only heard you say "The burden of proof isn't on us," so basically my conclusion is that you're an arrogant closed minded bastard.

False. There's no recorded instance of any government, democratic or otherwise, that did not make totally unjustifiable concessions to religious believers and religious institutions.

Even in Cambodia where the executed the Bhuddists and destroyed all their monastaries? yes that's the exception, one of the most horrific dictatorship the world has ever seen? My conclusion, atheist fundamentalism is worse than Saudi Arabia.

Although, following previous discussions where you flattly deny the known carbon monoxide toxicology and plant biology, I don't really see why I care what you think.

[redstar2000]

"The whole Point on Belief in God is that there is no evidence, it's called faith." -- Moskitto

"Arrogant closed-minded bastard" that I am, I submit that Moskitto's summary is accurate and self-damning.

Thus any believer in anything can say only that "it's true because I say it's true." And if he's got a gun, you'd better pay very respectful attention.

I confess continuing astonishment at such a medieval outlook in the pages of che-lives. :o

I guess that's what you get in an new era of "holy wars".

:cool:

[Totalitarian]

Utopian Marxism is a religion in itself.

In communist dictatorships Buddhism was one of the few religions with a coherent alternative to Marxism, and was often brutally suppressed.


http://kwelos.tripod.com/marxism.htm

[El Che]

Moskitto has a point IMO.

From the same scientific stand point from which we attack the belief in religion we can not turn around and categorically proclaim atheism as a scientific fact. This is a very simple notion and I don`t think anyone will challenge me on it. Atheism is a belief same as theism.

[peaccenicked]

Athiesm demands evidence for belief, even then it is tentative and malleable to further evidence. Theism requires no evidence and is dogmatic.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 8:48 am on April 9, 2003)

[El Che]

Hiya peace.

The key here is that Atheism doesn`t simply state Theism is an unproven hypothesis (by whatever standards), with that I think we can all agree. Scientifically the existence of God is not proven but nither is it disproven. How can you disprove something like that?
So even though it has some rational grounding Atheism goes a step to far, for saying that there is no God is just as metaphysical as saying there is a God. Right?

[redstar2000]

Consider the task of "proving" that "God" does not exist. How, exactly, could that be done?

If one adopts that approach, difficulties arise immediately.

For example, inspite of hundreds of thousands of person-years of observation, no gods have been seen by astronomers.

The believer retorts: "God is invisible."

In spite of millions of autopsies, no "souls" have ever been located.

The believer retorts: "Souls are invisible and weightless."

In spite of the all the efforts of reputable historians of all periods to unearth reliable evidence of divine appearance or intervention in earthly affairs, no such event has ever been discovered.

The believer retorts: "God works in mysterious ways."

Without positive evidence of God's existence, believers have nothing to offer but assertions...that can always be infinitely adjusted to meet negative results with new assertions. Whether they call it "faith" or "horse apples" makes no difference: it says something is true because I say so!

To accept such an assertion from anyone about anything, from a rational standpoint, is stupid!

Don't believe me? Ok, send me a PM with your e-mail address. I will then tell you where to send me all your money. Why should you do that? Because "God" told me that anyone who sends me all their money will live forever! :cheesy:

Why is my brazen attempt to swindle you out of your cash any less plausible than any other "Faith"? You can't "prove" I'm lying my ass off, can you?

I repeat...this is fucking medievalism! It is the perfect justification for a new century of holy wars and a new dark age.

That it should be found in the pages of che-lives is disgraceful.

:cool:

PS: Moskitto's Revenge--the costs of British aggression against Iraq will be met, in part, with an 8-pence increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes and a 1-pence increase in the tax on a bottle of beer. :o