Religion Fools the Masses?

[dmcauliffe09]

The one point where I have to disagree with Marx (a point which is a major tenent of communism) is when he said that religion was created by the bourgeoisie in order to control the masses. If we look at his theory of history, we see "primitive communism" as the first type of society in our history. However, even during this time, religion (or any belief in some higher power) played a major part in the lives of the people. I think that organized religion, i.e., the church and its laws, were created in order to exploit the working class, but my belief in God is still there. The church itself serves no true purpose other than to attempt to control the minds of people. True, tehre exist churches that genuinely care about the people, but these are not the televized churches now so common in America. Organized religion (the formation of religion into separate branches even if they are part of the same religion, such as Protestans and Catholics in Christianity), has, for the most part, done more to separate the people than bring them together under the "one God."

[Lenin's Law]

The one point where I have to disagree with Marx (a point which is a major tenent of communism) is when he said that religion was created by the bourgeoisie in order to control the masses.

Marx never said that the bourgeoisie created religion. How could this be? The bourgeoisie were a relatively recent phenomena and religion has been around for thousands of years. Used it to its own ends, of course, manipulated the masses with it yes, but created it is incorrect.

Furthermore, I wouldn't call it a "major" tenet of Marxism; besides "On the Jewish Question" which was written before he was a Communist, Marx had very little to say about religion and much more to say on his theories of historical materialism, class analysis, and the nature of capital.



I think organized religion i.e. the church and its laws were created in order to exploit the working class, but my belief in God is still there. The church itself serves no true purpose other than to attempt to control the minds of people. True, tehre exist churches that genuinely care about the people, but these are not the televized churches now so common in America. Organized religion (the formation of religion into separate branches even if they are part of the same religion, such as Protestans and Catholics in Christianity), has, for the most part, done more to separate the people than bring them together under the "one God."

Neither Marx nor Lenin, Trotsky, etc would have any major issue with what you just said. What they were against is religious influence in government, particularly the role of organized religion which you have criticized here. They believed that religious beliefs would begin to whither away naturally in the advanced capitalist states and then eventually become obsolete during socialism because of materialist reasons not because of any idealist notions (and outside of maybe the USA, this has been true) Therefore making speeches against religion itself, as some radicals do, and not the role of organized religion in society was a mistake from their point of view. Lenin would explicitly write that comrades were not to be discriminated upon or denied membership into the Communist Party simply for their religious belief in a god:



Religion should be held a private affair-- these are the words in which the attitude of Socialists to religion is customarily expressed.. We demand that religion should be a private affair as far as the state is concerned. Everybody must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or none at all.. No distinction whatever between citizens, as regards to their rights, depending upon their religious beliefs can be tolerated....

But in this connection we must not under any circumstances fall into the abstract and idealist error of arguing the religious question from the standpoint of "reason" --as is not infrequently done by bourgeois radical democrats...

Unity in this truly revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of opinion amonng the proleterians about a paradise in heaven. That is why we do not and must not proclaim our atheism in our program; that is why we do not and must not forbid proletarians who still cherish certain relics of the old superstition (religion) to approach our party.

[dmcauliffe09]

That's good to know. Many people think that being a communist automatically classifies someone as an atheist, which was qhat I thought before I moved towards socialism. More people need to know about Marx's vision on religion.

[Lenin's Law]

That's good to know. Many people think that being a communist automatically classifies someone as an atheist, which was qhat I thought before I moved towards socialism. More people need to know about Marx's vision on religion.

I agree. The first thing that needs to be understood is that what separated Marx from many of his contemporaries was his objective, scientific analysis of events and phenomena and not looking at it from an idealist or utopian point of view, which usually leads to liberal patronizing of the "stupid" masses "Oh why don't they just stop believing in religion!? Can't they see the evidence!? How stupid must they be?!!?"

These are the comments of the typical bourgeois radical, not of Marxists. The former blames the masses in a purely idealist (and insulting) way without looking at the economic roots of the problem (as you can imagine, generally ineffective and by its nature distances itself from the working class) and the materialist reasons for explaining religion's influence, as Marxists would do.

[Vanguard1917]

Many people think that being a communist automatically classifies someone as an atheist, which was qhat I thought before I moved towards socialism. More people need to know about Marx's vision on religion.

It wasn't atheism which Marx opposed; indeed he was an atheist himself. What he opposed were non-materialist arguments against religion (e.g. the ones Lenin's Law criticises in his last post). Marx insisted that, since religious belief has material causes, a criticism of religion must necessarily involve a criticism of the society which gives rise to religion.



The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

[spice756]

Religion is not compatible with left ideas has religion is anti-gays and lesbian ,abortion ,women equal to man ,stem cell research ,liberty rights so on.


The religion always been sexism ,anti-working class rights ,anti-gays and lesbian so on.



Marx never said that the bourgeoisie created religion. How could this be? The bourgeoisie were a relatively recent phenomena and religion has been around for thousands of years. Used it to its own ends, of course, manipulated the masses with it yes, but created it is incorrect.



I think it was the monarchy who made religion .Not to say religion very anti-communism.

[mikelepore]

Religion is much older than any class-ruled society. Religion probably goes back to a time when ancient people were sitting around and making up stories, and someone suggested that death might be a trip to an eternal life, and the hearers made it a point to remember that story because it seemed gratifying. But when class-divided society appeared, the rulers found that they could make practical use of religion. The rulers could tell their slaves: don't rebel against authority, but be obedient and endure your labor and poverty, because you will be rewarded many times over when your spirit goes to heaven.

[Dean]

We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. ....we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions.
- Karl Marx

[Decolonize The Left]

Religion is not compatible with left ideas has religion is anti-gays and lesbian ,abortion ,women equal to man ,stem cell research ,liberty rights so on.

Religion is anti-human, and denies life. That is why it is incompatible with leftist ideas...

Why anti-human? It posits a "soul," or "spirit," while denying the only thing we know - the body.

Why life-denial? It posits some sort of post-life/after-life/continuation of soul/spirit beyond what we know - life. Hence it denies reality.

Leftist ideas center around what we know - material reality. Religion demonstrates a fundamental disassociation of the individual from their material reality. They must posit beyond it to make sense of it, they must make believe in order to understand experience. It is perhaps the greatest contradiction ever fabricated by human beings.

- August

[spice756]

Religion is much older than any class-ruled society. Religion probably goes back to a time when ancient people were sitting around and making up stories, and someone suggested that death might be a trip to an eternal life, and the hearers made it a point to remember that story because it seemed gratifying. But when class-divided society appeared, the rulers found that they could make practical use of religion. The rulers could tell their slaves: don't rebel against authority, but be obedient and endure your labor and poverty, because you will be rewarded many times over when your spirit goes to heaven.

Blame it on the crusades is why we have religion in North America ,South America and Central America.

But the strange thing is religion is on the rise in the US but going down in Europe .The UK and France is low.But for some reason the US did not go this way and is very high.

[mikelepore]

Blame it on the crusades is why we have religion in North America ,South America and Central America.

Would you rather that we have the religion of Montezuma and the Aztecs? Not any better.

[Random Precision]

Would you rather that we have the religion of Montezuma and the Aztecs? Not any better.

I don't think it's exactly fair to associate the entire precolumbian American people or their beliefs with the imperial Mexica faith.

[Bud Struggle]

Blame it on the crusades is why we have religion in North America ,South America and Central America.

But the strange thing is religion is on the rise in the US but going down in Europe .The UK and France is low.But for some reason the US did not go this way and is very high.

FWIW: Religion is in the rise in China, Africa, and South America. Things go up--things go down. Oddly, it's not really attached to the standard of living.

[Killfacer]

Blame it on the crusades is why we have religion in North America ,South America and Central America.

But the strange thing is religion is on the rise in the US but going down in Europe .The UK and France is low.But for some reason the US did not go this way and is very high.

Religion in north america because of the crusades?

[spice756]

Would you rather that we have the religion of Montezuma and the Aztecs? Not any better.

So if it was not for the crusades we would be Montezuma or Aztecs?

What we need to do is find out what is causing this increase in religion...

[Rosa Provokateur]

Religion is anti-human, and denies life. That is why it is incompatible with leftist ideas...

Why anti-human? It posits a "soul," or "spirit," while denying the only thing we know - the body.


Only if you look at dualistic beliefs on the afterlife, which the early christians didnt hold. Holistic (people being made up of body, soul, and spirit to make up the whole being) embraces people taking charge of life here and now and many scholars have speculated that the paradise described in the Bible will be on earth itself.

[S&Y]

I wanted to contribute to this thread but after seeing the posts made by Lenin's Law I figured I can't say it better myself.

Well done!

[Rosa Provokateur]

What we need to do is find out what is causing this increase in religion...
People want something more; they can see that life isnt just buying, working, going to school, dropping out, getting high, or whatever. They know that theres something going on thats bigger then themselves and bigger then the world they live in and they want a part of it, they want to embrace it and live a life bigger then what the trappings of society have to offer.

[spice756]

Only if you look at dualistic beliefs on the afterlife, which the early christians didnt hold. Holistic (people being made up of body, soul, and spirit to make up the whole being) embraces people taking charge of life here and now and many scholars have speculated that the paradise described in the Bible will be on earth itself.

What ? They weak and need god to take them to paradise :confused:

[Rosa Provokateur]

What ? They weak and need god to take them to paradise :confused:
No, it means that it'll be built, here on earth, by you and me and everybody. Heaven, like hell, is something that can be built on earth.

[Decolonize The Left]

Only if you look at dualistic beliefs on the afterlife, which the early christians didnt hold. Holistic (people being made up of body, soul, and spirit to make up the whole being) embraces people taking charge of life here and now and many scholars have speculated that the paradise described in the Bible will be on earth itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "early Christians." If you're referring to Gnostic Christianity then I understand your point, however flawed it may be.

"People being made up of body, soul, and spirit" is unnecessary nonsense. You don't know there's a soul, or a spirit - you merely claim this to be the case.

Allow me an argument:
If you drop the soul, and the spirit, what are you left with? The body. If you accept that the body is the person, then how does a person create a "heaven here on earth?" Simply by improving the material conditions of the species - this is the goal of communism/anarchism (the revolutionary left).

We, revolutionary leftists, have no need of your assumed, posited, unjustified "soul and spirit." We are capable of making better argument for the improvement of society without these fancies.

Does that make sense? Arguing for a soul and spirit weakens your argument for the betterment of humanity!

- August

[spice756]

No, it means that it'll be built, here on earth, by you and me and everybody. Heaven, like hell, is something that can be built on earth.

So Christians say if you live good life and no sin you go to Heven and if you have sin you go hell?

But that is people who think there is god and Heven:lol: If you think there is no god and Heaven than this is not the problem.You can do what ever you like.

[spice756]

Allow me an argument:
If you drop the soul, and the spirit, what are you left with? The body. If you accept that the body is the person, then how does a person create


No soul or spirit = no after-life.And no after-life = no paradise .You die you die there is no after-life .

[Rosa Provokateur]

I'm not sure what you mean by "early Christians." If you're referring to Gnostic Christianity then I understand your point, however flawed it may be.

"People being made up of body, soul, and spirit" is unnecessary nonsense. You don't know there's a soul, or a spirit - you merely claim this to be the case.

Allow me an argument:
If you drop the soul, and the spirit, what are you left with? The body. If you accept that the body is the person, then how does a person create a "heaven here on earth?" Simply by improving the material conditions of the species - this is the goal of communism/anarchism (the revolutionary left).

We, revolutionary leftists, have no need of your assumed, posited, unjustified "soul and spirit." We are capable of making better argument for the improvement of society without these fancies.

Does that make sense? Arguing for a soul and spirit weakens your argument for the betterment of humanity!

- August
I don't know theres a soul anymore than you know the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The Seventh Day Adventist journal, "Sign of the Times" featured an article on it in their October issue that can articulate it better then I can.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So Christians say if you live good life and no sin you go to Heven and if you have sin you go hell?


I dont buy that, I recognize no mans authority to tell anyone whether or not they'll end up in Hell.

I'm more concerned with Hell in the here and now; the Hell in Darfur, the Hell in Mexico, the Hell being experienced by the addicts who cracked-logic is helping, the Hell being suffered by those living with polio, etc.

Hell is on earth, just like Heaven, and just like Hell, Heaven can be created. God made the earth to be good so I say lets use in that purpose, to create good.

[Forward Union]

No, it means that it'll be built, here on earth, by you and me and everybody. Heaven, like hell, is something that can be built on earth.

Yea that was my favourite bit of the bible.


...oh wait you made it up.

[Forward Union]

I don't know theres a soul anymore than you know the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

No.

The sun will rise tomorrow because of our orbit around it, something we have a rather full scientific understanding of.

A soul however, is as scientifically valid as fairys.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't know theres a soul anymore than you know the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The Seventh Day Adventist journal, "Sign of the Times" featured an article on it in their October issue that can articulate it better then I can.

Speaking epistemological terms, you're correct. Speaking casually, you're horribly incorrect. Why?

1. I have a history of watching the sun rise and knowing (retrospectively it is possible to know in the epistemological sense) that it rose everyday.
On the other hand, you have absolutely no history what-so-ever about a soul existing. None.
2. I have reason for believing the sun will rise this morning. Why? Because it does everyday, and we are orbiting the sun on a spherical planet which would imply that as our planet rotates we will receive direct sunlight.
On the other hand, you have absolutely no reason what-so-ever to believe in a soul. None.
3. I have even more reason for believing the sun will rise this morning. Why? Because everyone can watch it rise, everyday.
On the other hand, no one can perceive a soul - ever.

- August

[Rosa Provokateur]

Yea that was my favourite bit of the bible.


...oh wait you made it up.
Read it again; there is no mention of people floating away to some "great beyond", rather, Jesus always describes Heaven as being near. Now how could it be near if it were some far off place? It couldnt, it isnt. Its gonna be here.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Speaking epistemological terms, you're correct. Speaking casually, you're horribly incorrect. Why?

1. I have a history of watching the sun rise and knowing (retrospectively it is possible to know in the epistemological sense) that it rose everyday.
On the other hand, you have absolutely no history what-so-ever about a soul existing. None.
2. I have reason for believing the sun will rise this morning. Why? Because it does everyday, and we are orbiting the sun on a spherical planet which would imply that as our planet rotates we will receive direct sunlight.
On the other hand, you have absolutely no reason what-so-ever to believe in a soul. None.
3. I have even more reason for believing the sun will rise this morning. Why? Because everyone can watch it rise, everyday.
On the other hand, no one can perceive a soul - ever.

- August
Why dont I have a reason to believe in a soul and how do you know the soul cant be perceived?

[Decolonize The Left]

Why dont I have a reason to believe in a soul and how do you know the soul cant be perceived?

The 'soul' can't be perceived because the soul is supposedly non-material, therefore it is impossible to perceive it materially.

You have no reason to believe in a soul because:
- It can't be perceived.
- There is no historical evidence of a soul existing.
- There is no justification for a soul existing - ever.

- August

[Rosa Provokateur]

- There is no justification for a soul existing - ever.

- August
What makes it unjustified?

[Killfacer]

Because there is no justification for it. Unlike the sun, which we know we are in orbit around and which has risen since time immemorial, there is know history of people seeing the soul or perceiving it as being in existance.

[spice756]

What makes it unjustified?


I think what he is saying you cannot see or feel the soul it is not mass or material.

The sun is mass and material and we can see it.

There is no history of the soul but there is a history of the sun.

There is no scientific understanding of the soul but there is a scientific understanding of the sun.




I dont buy that, I recognize no mans authority to tell anyone whether or not they'll end up in Hell.


That is want the Church is saying and the bible.

[Faction2008]

I don't know theres a soul anymore than you know the sun will rise tomorrow morning..
You have compared irrelevant topics.


We, revolutionary leftists, have no need of your assumed, posited, unjustified "soul and spirit." We are capable of making better argument for the improvement of society without these fancies. I very much agree with this.

[Decolonize The Left]

What makes it unjustified?

Other members have provided adequate reasons for why claim that there is a soul is unjustified. I shall try another approach.
Soul: "The spirit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spirit) or essence (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/essence) of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person’s death." (wiktionary.com)

You can see that "spirit" and "essence" are loose terms, whereby the meaning of each term is up to the individual using it in the specific circumstance. Similarly, "soul" is a loose term - meaning little in and of itself, but only meaningful when placed within a context.

Religious individuals say there is a soul, but they have no proof. Then they use this soul to justify a serious philosophy about after-life, eternal suffering, and serving God. Given it's loose definition, it can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean in any context, hence it becomes easy to avoid critique.

But there is no proof of a soul - none. Never has been... ever... so the claim "there is a soul" has no justification - it is not justified by any tangible, material, physical, evidence (nor can it be as it is supposedly immaterial).

- August

[mikelepore]

So if it was not for the crusades we would be Montezuma or Aztecs?

If I was that unclear, I will rephrase. I was responding to the statement: "Blame it on the crusades is why we have religion in North America, South America and Central America." My reply is: if the crusades had never occurred, religion would still exist on other continents, where it developed independently of European influence; for example, the Aztecs.


What we need to do is find out what is causing this increase in religion...

I don't believe there is an increase. All tribes, all nations were extremely religious thousands of years ago. This has decreased.

[Bud Struggle]

On the other hand, no one can perceive a soul - ever.

- August

Or the Revolution. :laugh:

Your pedantically is becoming threadbare, my friend.

[Decolonize The Left]

Or the Revolution. :laugh:

Your pedantically is becoming threadbare, my friend.

I'm not sure if "pedantically" can become threadbare, but I gather your meaning. :D

Unfortunately, you have greatly oversimplified the 'revolution' to make your ill-conceived analogy.

The 'revolution' is but a logical movement from the development of class consciousness. One can perceive class consciousness everyday, perhaps even every hour, minute, etc... While we cannot perceive the actual event of the revolution, we can perceive its groundwork and the movements which lead to its culmination.

On the other hand, the soul is the event - it is the thing which we cannot perceive, never have been able to perceive, has no justification, and no logical connections to anything. It is pure speculation, nothing more.

The revolution, in terms of a development of class consciousness, is not pure speculation. The event itself, in regards to time and place, is indeed speculation - but such talk is worthless. All that matters in regards to the revolution itself is the movements which help to bring it about (however it may be).

- August

[Rosa Provokateur]

Because there is no justification for it. Unlike the sun, which we know we are in orbit around and which has risen since time immemorial, there is know history of people seeing the soul or perceiving it as being in existance.
If no one could perceive it then where did it come from? You and I can perceive it, thats how were able to talk about it.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I think what he is saying you cannot see or feel the soul it is not mass or material.

The sun is mass and material and we can see it.

There is no history of the soul but there is a history of the sun.

There is no scientific understanding of the soul but there is a scientific understanding of the sun.




That is want the Church is saying and the bible.
I dont live life based only on what I can see or on what science can observe. I'll grant that science is good and necessary but there are many things it has yet to explain, many things it can't explain or answer: simple things like why the grass is green. To all those things I attribute them a Creator.

I dont believe in the church as an organization; the church is the people, the congregation whom without there is nothing. Being nothing more than people there are agreements and disagreements and through constant dialogue the faith is able to constantly ponder new ideas. Some things that one christian might believe, another christian might reject. This includes who goes to Hell.

The biblical description of Hell was two things 1) In Jesus' case, he was talking about the local garbage dump in Jerusalem known as Gehenna. 2) In the case of the Apostles, they were trying to describe with words what seperation from God felt like to them; imagine trying to describe a head-ache, you could try but wouldnt really ever do justice... same with the Apostles.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Other members have provided adequate reasons for why claim that there is a soul is unjustified. I shall try another approach.
Soul: "The spirit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spirit) or essence (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/essence) of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person’s death." (wiktionary.com)

You can see that "spirit" and "essence" are loose terms, whereby the meaning of each term is up to the individual using it in the specific circumstance. Similarly, "soul" is a loose term - meaning little in and of itself, but only meaningful when placed within a context.

Religious individuals say there is a soul, but they have no proof. Then they use this soul to justify a serious philosophy about after-life, eternal suffering, and serving God. Given it's loose definition, it can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean in any context, hence it becomes easy to avoid critique.

But there is no proof of a soul - none. Never has been... ever... so the claim "there is a soul" has no justification - it is not justified by any tangible, material, physical, evidence (nor can it be as it is supposedly immaterial).

- August
My belief in the soul is only as unjustified as your belief that anarchy can and will succeed. You have no evidence, no proof, no way of truly knowing that it can and will yet you choose to still believe. The reason you do so when you get past all the theory and politics is it gives you hope and drive for something better, something just and good. Likewise with myself.

[Faction2008]

My belief in the soul is only as unjustified as your belief that anarchy can and will succeed. You have no evidence, no proof, n o way of truly knowing that it can and will yet you choose to still believe.
Well actually even though I don't believe in Anarchism I think he has a stronger argument than yours. For instance he can look at psychology, economic predictions and international relations to come to the conclusion that Anarchism will succeed. Your belief on the soul has no historical or scientific evidence, it's pure delusion and it's based on fiction (The Bible).

[mikelepore]

I'll grant that science is good and necessary but there are many things it has yet to explain, many things it can't explain or answer: simple things like why the grass is green. To all those things I attribute them a Creator.

In 1894 Henry Drummond, in his book _The Ascent of Man_, said: "There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps -- gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps."

Ever since then, the viewpoint that Drummond refered to has been nicknamed "the God of the gaps."

There was a time when God was said to perform a miracle every time it rained. But eventually the relationships between temperature, pressure and humidity were discovered. Now God doesn't have to make it rain anymore. Instead, he only had to create molecules and leave them alone.

Religion based on such an approach has to keep retreating. Science keeps making the miracle unnecessary, and then religion leaps backwards and posits another miracle.

[Faction2008]

In 1894 Henry Drummond, in his book _The Ascent of Man_, said: "There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps -- gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps."

Ever since then, the viewpoint that Drummond refered to has been nicknamed "the God of the gaps."

There was a time when God was said to perform a miracle every time it rained. But eventually the relationships between temperature, pressure and humidity were discovered. Now God doesn't have to make it rain anymore. Instead, he only had to create molecules and leave them alone.

Religion based on such an approach has to keep retreating. Science keeps making the miracle unnecessary, and then religion leaps backwards and posits another miracle.

I agree every time Science is yet to explain something it's always that God must have done it. Galileo's and other scientists theories weren't accepted at first and I reckon it's only a matter of time before Science proves there are no more gaps for God to fill.

[Jazzratt]

If no one could perceive it then where did it come from? You and I can perceive it, thats how were able to talk about it.

I can talk, often at great length, about things that do not exist. I've never, of course, perceived faeries, goblins and the like - this doesn't mean I can't discuss them with people.

[Rosa Provokateur]

In 1894 Henry Drummond, in his book _The Ascent of Man_, said: "There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps -- gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps."

Ever since then, the viewpoint that Drummond refered to has been nicknamed "the God of the gaps."

There was a time when God was said to perform a miracle every time it rained. But eventually the relationships between temperature, pressure and humidity were discovered. Now God doesn't have to make it rain anymore. Instead, he only had to create molecules and leave them alone.

Religion based on such an approach has to keep retreating. Science keeps making the miracle unnecessary, and then religion leaps backwards and posits another miracle.
You're right that science answers "how" things work, what I am saying is that it can't answer "why" they work or for what reason.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I can talk, often at great length, about things that do not exist. I've never, of course, perceived faeries, goblins and the like - this doesn't mean I can't discuss them with people.
Faeries and goblins are easy because they contain things such as human body parts, things we can see and perceive through site. God has not been seen and is yet still perceived; His/Her/Its physical makeup is unknown yet we can still discuss Him/Her/It. Why?, because God exists.

[Decolonize The Left]

My belief in the soul is only as unjustified as your belief that anarchy can and will succeed. You have no evidence, no proof, no way of truly knowing that it can and will yet you choose to still believe. The reason you do so when you get past all the theory and politics is it gives you hope and drive for something better, something just and good. Likewise with myself.

There is a huge difference between belief in a soul, and belief in anarchist theory.

A soul is a supposed immaterial "thing."

On the other hand, anarchist theory is a way of relating to the world.

The soul either exists or it doesn't - and since no one can prove it exists, and never has, and there is no reason to believe it exists, it's highly probable that it doesn't exist.
Anarchist theory is not a question of existing or not-existing. It is a way of understanding and relating to the material conditions of the world and society. Like communist theory, it is a form of analysis by which one can understand the social phenomenon of our existence.

Furthermore, anarchist/communist theory is rooted is logic and reason. It makes sense. The soul makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. And given that our species survives by being able to make sense of our situation, and therefore to improve our situation, it is coherent to believe in justified theories as opposed to nonsensical unjustified ideas.

- August

[Rosa Provokateur]

it's highly probable that it doesn't exist. Highly probable but not impossible.

[mikelepore]

It seems that the ambiguity in the term "God" is more apparent to me than it is to some other people. It's one thing to believe that there exists some kind of creative agency that produced the universe, a creative power about which nothing more can be said with certainty. It's another thing to believe that there exists an invisible being with a human-like personality, who wants us to obey certain rules, and to go to a certain house of worship on a certain day, where we will recite certain incantations, while wearing certain kinds of clothing. These two entirely unlike notions are, due to a trick of language, placed under the same umbrella term "God." I notice further that some believers in the God of the second type, when asked why they believe, will cite the First Cause argument or some such, which, even if it were true, could only establish the God of the first type.

[Rosa Provokateur]

It seems that the ambiguity in the term "God" is more apparent to me than it is to some other people. It's one thing to believe that there exists some kind of creative agency that produced the universe, a creative power about which nothing more can be said with certainty. It's another thing to believe that there exists an invisible being with a human-like personality, who wants us to obey certain rules, and to go to a certain house of worship on a certain day, where we will recite certain incantations, while wearing certain kinds of clothing. These two entirely unlike notions are, due to a trick of language, placed under the same umbrella term "God." I notice further that some believers in the God of the second type, when asked why they believe, will cite the First Cause argument or some such, which, even if it were true, could only establish the God of the first type.

Only two rules to obey; love God and love everybody as much as you love yourself.

You dont have to go to anything on any certain day, the Seventh Day Adventists to it on Saturday and I myself attend a collective bible-study and dinner every monday night.

By incantations I think you're talking about the liturgy; nobody practices that aside from Catholics.

Clothes are optional; if a church is stuck on a dress code then somethings wrong with them. The one my sister goes to allows t-shirts and jeans 24/7. I even went up there wearing a Subhumans shirt and they were totally cool with it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Highly probable but not impossible.

Indeed - but you take the smallest possibility and make it a certainty.

It's also highly improbable that I have a dragon for a pet. Should I believe that to be true as well?

It's also highly improbable that white people are genetically better than black people, is that reason enough to believe it to be the case?

You see how your argument has no grounds?

- August

[Forward Union]

Faeries and goblins are easy because they contain things such as human body parts, things we can see and perceive through site. .

According to the Bible God is also visable through sight. I believe Abraham got a glimpse of Gods anus in Leviticus. And certainly, people claim to have regular conversation with God, so he is perveivable, according to your faith.

What if I told you that one of the qualities of these goblins was that you could only see them if you believed in them, and that I certainly do see them? Would you accept they were real? Or assume I was making things up? What if lots of people believed this?

[pusher robot]

According to the Bible God is also visable through sight. I believe Abraham got a glimpse of Gods anus in Leviticus. And certainly, people claim to have regular conversation with God, so he is perveivable, according to your faith.


Not necessarily. There could be a difference between subjective perception and objective existence.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'll grant that science is good and necessary but there are many things it has yet to explain, many things it can't explain or answer: simple things like why the grass is green.

Grass has chlorophyll. It does a poor job absorbing the green part of the light spectrum. That's why grass appears green to us.


There could be a difference between subjective perception and objective existence.

This difference being...?

[Jazzratt]

Faeries and goblins are easy because they contain things such as human body parts, things we can see and perceive through site. God has not been seen and is yet still perceived; His/Her/Its physical makeup is unknown yet we can still discuss Him/Her/It. Why?, because God exists.

How in the blue fucking christ is God "perceived"? There are no reliable accounts of anyone feeling, tasting, touching, hearing, seeing or smelling it. So what sense is used in this perception?

By christian reckoning the physical makeup of god is fairly straightforward (at least as far as appearance is concerned), surely? "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" and all that shit.

[pusher robot]

This difference being...?

That it is possible to perceive sight of things that do not objectively exist, thus cannot be seen.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Grass has chlorophyll. It does a poor job absorbing the green part of the light spectrum. That's why grass appears green to us.



Thats how, not why.

[Faction2008]

Thats how, not why.

Why does it need appear green to us?

[ROM]

:thumbup1: RIGHT ON. I am forced to listen to church bells every day of the week from
8:00 Am to 6:00 PM every hour on the hour for twenty minute interludes.
I have complained to the local officials with zero results. I feel subjugated by thier
religious beliefs. If I would not be imprisoned I would BURN the church along with the Bell Tower. Where is the seperation of Church and State? Burn Baby Burn'

[ROM]

:thumbup1: RIGHT ON' USA

[mikelepore]

I don't even know what "love God" means. This being has the power to show itself and make it characteristics obvious to all, and yet it refuses to do so. How can we love the absense of any information?

Try this: I'm thinking of something that's invisible, inaudible, odorless, tasteless, in fact, it has no known features whatsoever. Now, don't you just love it?

It sounds to me like a neurotransmitter "high", projecting itself into an imagined external object.

***

As for loving other people, that's a wonderful rule. But I find it incredulous that it could be a rule could have been handed down by a God who created a reality in which animals survive by attacking and eating each other, in addition to the prey feeling every painful bite. The evidence indicates that morality is produced by our own sympathy and intelligence.

[Decolonize The Left]

Thats how, not why.

Indeed, and such is the rift between religion and science.

Science attempts (and succeeds fairly accurately) at explaining the how.

Religion attempts (with no measure of success) to explain the why.

But what you fail to understand, Green Apostle, is that religion is merely another way of explaining "why." After all, people wrote the Bible. The prophets were people. Human beings have been attempting to explain the why long, long, before the Bible. In fact, the Bible is merely another brick in the wall of superstition which exists to attempt to explain the why.

What all religious individuals fail to realize is that there is no "why."

- August

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1261546#post1261546)
Grass has chlorophyll. It does a poor job absorbing the green part of the light spectrum. That's why grass appears green to us.



Thats how, not why.

Sigh. OK:
"Why is the grass green?"

"Grass is green BECAUSE it has chlorophyll".

Not because "God" did his thingie-ma-jigger.


That it is possible to perceive sight of things that do not objectively exist, thus cannot be seen.

Ah - but can something that objectively exists not be perceivable? And are not what we consider to "objectively exist" based on perception or our belief that such perceptions would be possible should we take the trouble?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Why does it need appear green to us?
Thats a good question; few animals can see as many colors as humans so why is it that we have that ability while other species dont? Is it possible that it was intended that way by something, I think so.

[pusher robot]

Ah - but can something that objectively exists not be perceivable?
Well, that depends on why it's not perceivable. The tree objectively makes a sound even if nobody is around to hear it. There might objectively be a giant diamond at the center of Jupiter even if nobody can possibly discover it. I'm supposing that you mean it couldn't even be theoretically perceivable through any instrument or epiphenomenon, and I would agree that such things cannot meaningfully be said to "exist."
And are not what we consider to "objectively exist" based on perception or our belief that such perceptions would be possible should we take the trouble?Pretty much, yeah.

[Faction2008]

Thats a good question; few animals can see as many colors as humans so why is it that we have that ability while other species dont? Is it possible that it was intended that way by something, I think so.
It's obvious their eyes are less developed than ours. Some animals have better senses of smell and touch than us is there a why to it? No I just think through the way they evolved it happened by chance.

[al8]

It's obvious their eyes are less developed than ours. Some animals have better senses of smell and touch than us is there a why to it? No I just think through the way they evolved it happened by chance.

Or to ad and paraphrase the how ultimatly answers the why in this respect. Through natural selection and chance, that is evolution, the creatures got their varied atributes.

[Killfacer]

Thats a good question; few animals can see as many colors as humans so why is it that we have that ability while other species dont? Is it possible that it was intended that way by something, I think so.

what a stupid statement, have you ever heard of evolution?

[Rosa Provokateur]

through the way they evolved it happened by chance.
Thats a hell of a chance dont ya think. Not to say that they didnt evolve but to say it happened by chance, its too well set up.

[Rosa Provokateur]

what a stupid statement, have you ever heard of evolution?
What a kind way of putting it, Killer.

Yeah and I believe in it, I just dont think it happened due to the blind and clueless luck of random chance.

[Faction2008]

Thats a hell of a chance dont ya think. Not to say that they didnt evolve but to say it happened by chance, its too well set up.

Oh so out of billions and billions of galaxies and planets there's absolutely no chance that on at least one planet more than type of life form evolved? Pretty fucking retarded if it didn't.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Oh so out of billions and billions of galaxies and planets there's absolutely no chance that on at least one planet more than type of life form evolved? Pretty fucking retarded if it didn't.
Its probable and possible so whose to say if it did or didnt.

[Faction2008]

Its probable and possible so whose to say if it did or didnt.
Of course it's possible, you are a living example of evolution.

[Jazzratt]

Yeah and I believe in it, I just dont think it happened due to the blind and clueless luck of random chance.

Nor do I. That's probably because I understand it a fucksight better than you do.

Evolution sans God is not *random*. At least not in the sense used by theists when they construct strawmen.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) (NOT the same as random chance!) has a lot more going for it than "theistic evolution", which violates the principle of parsimony.