No Gods. No Masters.

[PostAnarchy]

This is my favorite revolutionary leftist/anarchist quote or saying. :thumbup1:
I think what this means to me is that we need urgently as human beings to destroy and shatter the stone-age texts of yesteryear and do away with all the gods and fairy tales that the ruling class has used to divide and distract the masses from their true goals and real class interests.

[Anti Freedom]

Wouldn't a need to do something imply a god or a master?

I really wouldn't take this as an imperative at all. This isn't to say that your last part about true goals and real class interests is incorrect, but I do think that any statement of external need implies a god/master.

In any case, I think it really applies more to a stabilized anarchist society, in the functionings of that anarchist society. I could be wrong on that though.

[revolution inaction]

Wouldn't a need to do something imply a god or a master?


What do you mean?


I think what this means to me is that we need urgently as human beings to destroy and shatter the stone-age texts of yesteryear and do away with all the gods and fairy tales that the ruling class has used to divide and distract the masses from their true goals and real class interests.


I thinks it means that we want a world free from rulers and religion

[Anti Freedom]

What do you mean?
I mean that the notion "we need urgently as human beings" seems to be a moral calling, while I think a notion of "No Gods, No Masters" seems to imply self-determination, in place of moral command.

[thejambo1]

i think it does what it says,pure and simple. its my favourite!!:D

[Pogue]

No Gods No Countries No Masters

[PostAnarchy]

i think it does what it says,pure and simple. its my favourite!!:D

Yes, mine too! Simple direct to the point accessible to anyone!

:star::reda::blackA::star:

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

Religeon as an organized system is used as a mechanism of control but faith in a deity or some type of higher supranatural power in and of itself isn't repressive and not necesarily incompatible with radical leftist revolutionary politics. It seems that to many anti-theists are to caught up in the traditional notion of the Diety as an old man with a beard siting on a cloud ready to blast some one with a thunderbolt if they disagree with what he says, there are alternatives out there man, think outside of the box; you shouldn't get turned off to the beleif in God just cuz your old man was a bibel belter and an asshole or something who dragged you to the churchhouse on early sunday mornings.

[Pogue]

Its good if its clear that by no masters we also mean no bosses.

[Decolonize The Left]

Religeon as an organized system is used as a mechanism of control but faith in a deity or some type of higher supranatural power in and of itself isn't repressive and not necesarily incompatible with radical leftist revolutionary politics. It seems that to many anti-theists are to caught up in the traditional notion of the Diety as an old man with a beard siting on a cloud ready to blast some one with a thunderbolt if they disagree with what he says, there are alternatives out there man, think outside of the box; you shouldn't get turned off to the beleif in God just cuz your old man was a bibel belter and an asshole or something who dragged you to the churchhouse on early sunday mornings.

Nonsense. Belief in a supernatural diety/power is entirely incompatible with revolutionary politics. Why? Because revolutionary politics center around historical materialism and material reality. Religion, or theism, on the other hand, is entirely concerned with the positing of non-material things.

It is, in the first place, irrational. Revolutionary politics, on the other hand, are entirely rational and logical.

It is, in the second place, authoritarian. Revolutionary politics are anti-authoritarian.

Arguments could be made as well that theism is oppressive and destructive. Revolutionary politics is liberating and creative.

It is entirely philosophically incoherent to hold religious beliefs and yet claim to be a revolutionary leftist.

- August

[scarletghoul]

It is possible to be religious and a leftist revolutionary. Historic materliasm and material reality are possible for someone who also believes in a god. They are not mutually exclusive.
One does not need to apply the same rationality to politics as he does to spiritual matters.
Not all religions have a god anyway.
Theism in itself is not oppressive or destructive. Some types of theism are definately, but not all. Revolutionary politics is not necessarily liberating either.

...

[Oneironaut]

Nonsense. Belief in a supernatural diety/power is entirely incompatible with revolutionary politics. Why? Because revolutionary politics center around historical materialism and material reality. Religion, or theism, on the other hand, is entirely concerned with the positing of non-material things.

It is, in the first place, irrational. Revolutionary politics, on the other hand, are entirely rational and logical.

It is, in the second place, authoritarian. Revolutionary politics are anti-authoritarian.

Arguments could be made as well that theism is oppressive and destructive. Revolutionary politics is liberating and creative.

It is entirely philosophically incoherent to hold religious beliefs and yet claim to be a revolutionary leftist.

- August

Fantastic post! I find I agree on with you on every post you make about religion and its role amongst revolutionary leftists.


I think No gods, no masters is an immensely liberating statement. I find myself quoting it often even though I am no anarchist. This statement, along with Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!, are the most powerful leftist quotes to me.

[Oneironaut]

It is possible to be religious and a leftist revolutionary. Historic materliasm and material reality are possible for someone who also believes in a god.

Yes, but you fail to acknowledge the contradiction between being a historical materialist and a theist. Historical materialists understand why religions arise and likewise, their purpose. It would be foolish to adhere to any religion alongside a historical materialist understanding.


They are not mutually exclusive.
One does not need to apply the same rationality to politics as he does to spiritual matters.
Of course they aren't. Like I already mentioned, historical materialism acknowledges the rise and role of religion in society, and its triviality. It remains contradictory to ascribe to being a historical materialist and a theist of any sort. I don't care what how anyone approaches their "spiritual matters", it doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean I don't think they have a gigantic obstacle in their conscience to understanding what revolutionary politics are.


Theism in itself is not oppressive or destructive. Some types of theism are definately, but not all. Revolutionary politics is not necessarily liberating either.

Yes theism is itself oppressive. The belief that something exists outside of material reality that is a driving force behind our actions or a judge of how we act is oppressive. The fact that theists ultimately believe in bowing down to an eternal "truth" will always be oppressive.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Its good if its clear that by no masters we also mean no bosses.Indeed.

Back in the day it was coined, you had to call the boss 'master'. Bosses is what the masters bit refers to.

[scarletghoul]

Yes theism is itself oppressive. is oppressive. The fact that theists ultimately believe in bowing down to an eternal "truth" will always be oppressive.
"The belief that something exists outside of material reality that is a driving force behind our actions or a judge of how we act" is not the definition of theism. Theists do not all "believe in bowing down to an eternal "truth"".

Also even if you are oppressed by your God, you could still believe in equality of humans and other leftist ideals and advocate revolutionary methods to achieve them. Its not like the oppression of a god is the same oppression as that of a state.

[Random Precision]

Nonsense. Belief in a supernatural diety/power is entirely incompatible with revolutionary politics. Why? Because revolutionary politics center around historical materialism and material reality. Religion, or theism, on the other hand, is entirely concerned with the positing of non-material things.

False dichotomy. Believing in an immaterial reality does not necessarily dictate one's way of relating to material reality, although in many cases it does.

And Religion =/= Theism. Therevada Buddhism, for example.


It is, in the first place, irrational. Revolutionary politics, on the other hand, are entirely rational and logical.

Interesting statement. What kind of revolutionary politics? Yours? Mine? Pol Pot's?


It is, in the second place, authoritarian. Revolutionary politics are anti-authoritarian.

Not all religions are authoritarian, by which I'm assuming you mean having a hierarchical structure. And "having a god that humans must obey" does not equate to a real existing hierarchy. Neither do some religions even have that.


Arguments could be made as well that theism is oppressive and destructive.

Such arguments would have to be inductive. And similar inductive arguments could be made that theism has been "liberating" and "creative", in probably nearly as many cases.


Revolutionary politics is liberating and creative.

See above...

[Decolonize The Left]

False dichotomy. Believing in an immaterial reality does not necessarily dictate one's way of relating to material reality, although in many cases it does.

If we are materialists, then we understand that all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. I.e. all causes are effects, and all effects are causes, etc...

If this is the case, then believing in an immaterial reality has a direct effect on one's relationship to material reality. There is only one problem: material reality is real - immaterial reality isn't...

This notion that one can be religious in their 'private life' and revolutionary (or anything else) in their 'public life' is ludicrous. One's belief systems and value systems are not separated according to artificial public/private lines.


And Religion =/= Theism. Therevada Buddhism, for example.

Religion results from theism - theism is the belief in an ultimate deity; religion is a set of conduct which results from said belief.

I fail to understand your note of Theravada Buddhism - it is a religion.



Interesting statement. What kind of revolutionary politics? Yours? Mine? Pol Pot's?

Revolutionary politics (as we speak of them here, as this is a revolutionary leftist forum) are political theories devised from value systems centered around freedom and equality. My apologies if my omission of "leftist" in my previous post led to confusion.

Religion actively denies the values of freedom and equality as it posits beyond human freedom (an ultimate deity) and equality (this deity as judge).


Not all religions are authoritarian, by which I'm assuming you mean having a hierarchical structure. And "having a god that humans must obey" does not equate to a real existing hierarchy. Neither do some religions even have that.

I do not mean "having a hierarchical structure." I mean exactly what "authoritarian" means:
"Of, or relating to, absolute obedience to an authority."


Such arguments would have to be inductive. And similar inductive arguments could be made that theism has been "liberating" and "creative", in probably nearly as many cases.

You ignore much of history with this statement. A simple list of atrocities directly related to religion trumps any counter-arguments of which I'm aware. Perhaps you are aware of some amazing feats whereby religion has brought great liberation and creativity?

Last I checked, every major scientific and philosophical advance has been openly opposed by major religions.

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think what this means to me is that we need urgently as human beings to destroy and shatter the stone-age texts of yesteryear and do away with all the gods and fairy tales that the ruling class has used to divide and distract the masses from their true goals and real class interests.

This resembles the attitude of the conquistadors, burning every new-world document of un-truth they found, and smashing many, many artifacts of antiquity (often melting/destroying ancient works of art).

Until today, out of thousands, we have but 4 mayan books (codices). As Michael Coe pointed, it'd be as though all US history had been condensed to 3 prayer books and Pilgrims Progress.

Thanks a lot Spain. The biggest hole in Common Era history is due to your belief that you were right compared to another group's beliefs. You owe the world a motherfucking apology.

This attempt you've made in the OP, declaring that you are right and that the beliefs of your fathers, which you now call foolish, is of no value and should be smashed, is even more retarded than a call for worldwide revolution in the age of Nuclear Weapons. If science is correct, thn religion will be dead in a few generations (probably along with humanity).

Anyone who wants to smash the testaments of another's religious faith should never be taken seriously. Ever.

[Decolonize The Left]

Anyone who wants to smash the testaments of another's religious faith should never be taken seriously. Ever.

This would mean that many 'prophets' should not be taken seriously... ever...

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I mean that the notion "we need urgently as human beings" seems to be a moral calling, while I think a notion of "No Gods, No Masters" seems to imply self-determination, in place of moral command.

This is a very, very good point.

Somehow, the Lefties on here got to thinking and determined that religion is reactionary and that atheism is somehow results in a more progressive state of things.

This is hardly the case as I've seen the world. For example, when Katrina hit I went with a church group and volunteered in the aftermath.

Know how many atheist groups I saw?

zip

Want to know how the secular version of the private Charities (FEMA) was doing at helping their fellow Americans?

Worse than the Berlin Airlift. If the government had given my group 1% of what we wasted on FEMA we could have helped so much more...

But that is, of course, a limited incident, which nevertheless showed how much more efficient and better Charity is than faith in a godless, secular system in a time of great need. Unfortunately, we live in a mostly-Godless society and there were fewer volunteers than needed.

Secondly, there seems to be this notion that religion is forced upon people.

This may be true in Muslim countries, but it is far from the case here, where millions go to Church despite the fact that they were required to take Biology, despite the fact that one person after another denies God, and, what's furthermore, at least the same % of poor attend Church as the wealthy.

The fact is they choose to go.

Why?

Because even if they deny morality, ancient scripture, or God himself, what no atheist has to offer is the social structure of the Church.

What all you Lefties failed to realize was the while you were researching the oppressed, they were attending Church, teahing their children in an environment in which they are taught that there is a power greater than themself.

How many of you can justly claim that your Leftist Group watched children while their single mother was working?
Went to visit people battling terminal diseases with no intent other than offering support?
Delivered dinner to a family while the mother was pregnant?
Pooled resources so that someone can keep their refridgerator stocked and the lights on when they became unemployed? Then, of course, helped them to find employment?
Organized food stores so that noone goes hungry?
Organized service projets to clean up streams, highways, and other places?

I've done all of these things with my Church (which is the Church of my choosing), many many times. I also grew up in a family that had to depend on the Churchmembers for support from time to time.

Like Marxism, if it had all been up to science the last Churches would have been bulldozed years ago. Luckily, Atheists have no fucking clue, and many, if not most, are wealthy and view the Church social-structure as foolish. And they are idiots for this mistake.

For a lot of people, atheism sucks. Get over it. People have to be taught evolution in order to graduate, it isn't the science but the fact that Atheism is a hollow, unrewarding, and shitty alternative for many people (especially those who don't enjoy arguing with people). If I am right, you'll know when you're united again with the ones you've loved and lost. If you're right, who the fuck cares? It's not like it's going to make a difference what we believed.

"And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none-and thuse he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them in his evil chains , from whence there is no deliverance. Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!"

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This would mean that many 'prophets' should not be taken seriously... ever...

- August

What are you taking about?

Despite many being correct, you don't even have to know the name of a single prophet, let alone a prophesy.

What I'm taling about is the smashing of human history by idiots who thought nothing could be gained from another's beliefs.

You may not like the prophets, and I don't care. I do care, however, if you do what PostAnarchy talked about and denied my children of learning about the past of mankind.

[Decolonize The Left]

Cult,
The post before your last is disgusting.

Charity? You - yes you - force individuals into positions where they have to beg for money and then applaud yourself for giving it to them.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

What are you taking about?

Despite many being correct, you don't even have to know the name of a single prophet, let alone a prophesy.

What I'm taling about is the smashing of human history by idiots who thought nothing could be gained from another's beliefs.

You may not like the prophets, and I don't care. I do care, however, if you do what PostAnarchy talked about and denied my children of learning about the past of mankind.

I don't know what you're going on about here. All I noted was the terribly short-sighted statement you made before. Here it is again:

Anyone who wants to smash the testaments of another's religious faith should never be taken seriously. Ever.

You failed to note that almost all religions spring from objections, if not the destruction, of previous religions - therefore, according to you, religious prophets who are worshiped ought not to be taken seriously. Ever.

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Cult,
The post before your last is disgusting.

Charity? You - yes you - force individuals into positions where they have to beg for money and then applaud yourself for giving it to them.

- August

Ah, that's it, blame the 19-year old American for all of the poor's travails, then chastize him for helping his fellow man.

No, I am not responsible for them.

Either YOU, yes YOU, do Charity work, when NOBODY ELSE is doing anything, or you support the situation these people face.

One or the other, if you want to hold me responsible then the sword will cut two ways.You use the internet. It shouldn't be that hard find people who need help.

In this place called reality, PEOPLE are Starving NOW! All of your Leftist BULLSHIT does NOTHING to help
them NOW!


All those books Marx wrote does less for the poor than my Charity. All of the debating about Lenin and Trotsky and Che does less for the poor in 3 hours than 5 minutes of Charity does.


And you mock my Charity?


Did you not read my Post? I've spent hours helping people, not because they beg but because I've been in their position and received help from people who Did Not Need To Help Me. Either start your revolution to help all the poor, or shut the fuck up hypocrite.


You have a lot of growing up to do. Until then, suck my balls.

edit: I apologize for the harshness...

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't know what you're going on about here. All I noted was the terribly short-sighted statement you made before. Here it is again:

I know what I wrote.


You failed to note that almost all religions spring from objections, if not the destruction, of previous religions - therefore, according to you, religious prophets who are worshiped ought not to be taken seriously. Ever.

- August

But they did not eradicate the annals of history of the religions which came before.

Few Greeks worship Zeus, Few Egyptians worship anything but Allah, No North Africans worship baal, few Italians pray to Jupiter, etc etc.

All of these places adopted other Gods, but it's important that we have a record of what came before, and we do.

As for the Ancients, I can't blame someone in that society for, say, treating women like cattle (the more the better), killing the children of their enemies, enslaving every person they come across, etc etc.
But even Babylon allowed different religions to live, while the Spaniards, thousands of years later, destroyed everything they came into contact with, denying the history to posterity.

[Decolonize The Left]

And you mock my Charity?


Did you not read my Post? I've spent hours helping people, not because they beg but because I've been in their position and received help from people who Did Not Need To Help Me. Either start your revolution to help all the poor, or shut the fuck up hypocrite.


You have a lot of growing up to do. Until then, suck my balls.

Yes. I mock your charity.

Your self-assured, pat-on-the-back, charity is disgusting.

You fail to acknowledge:
1) That "charity" doesn't solve anything. At all. Ever.
2) That "charity" misses the entire point. People are poor due to an economic system which keeps them poor. Not, as you so ignorantly claim, because there aren't enough 'good folks' around to help them.
3) That "charity" is insulting to those who you wish to help. You insult their humanity by your condescending actions.

You even further demonstrate your condescending, patronizing, attitude with your final line. You don't know me. You don't know what I've done, but you assume, since I mock your charity, that I'm 'less than you.'

The last Christian died on the cross.

- August

[Demogorgon]

It is, in the first place, irrational. Revolutionary politics, on the other hand, are entirely rational and logical.

I am deeply uncomfortable with statements like this as this is what cults say. Whether it be Objectivists, transhumanists or whatever, they present themselves as bastions of logic whereas anyone outside of them can see that they don't have an ounce of such a thing.

Revolutionary politics certainly should be logical of course, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are in all cases. I often see ridiculously illogical posts on this board from people who are nonetheless revolutionary leftists.

Further, it is simple arrogance to say that religion is always irrational because that is not true. Catholic Priests for instance are encouraged to have degrees in philosophy which includes training in formal logic and if they do not have such a degree they are taught such things at the seminary, so right off the bat the entire clergy is meant to understand how to maintain the highest level of logic in their beliefs.

Religion necessarily bases itself on rationalism of course, whereas I strongly favour empiricism, but I can't say it is illogical simply because it uses rationalism. So long as it follows through the rest of its argument in a logically consistent manner I have to contest the starting principles, not the validity of the argument.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How many of you can justly claim that your Leftist Group watched children while their single mother was working?
Went to visit people battling terminal diseases with no intent other than offering support?
Delivered dinner to a family while the mother was pregnant?
Pooled resources so that someone can keep their refridgerator stocked and the lights on when they became unemployed? Then, of course, helped them to find employment?
Organized food stores so that noone goes hungry?
Organized service projets to clean up streams, highways, and other places?
This brings up a very good point - not about religion, but about leftist political activity.

Socialism owed much of its growth in popularity in the late 19th century to the fact that socialist parties and organizations offered a social environment for workers to get together and help each other in times of need. It is of course perfectly true that charity and mutual aid is the equivalent of "giving a man a fish," while the revolution is the equivalent of "teaching him to fish." But still, using socialist organizations for charitable causes can do wonders for the popularity and prestige of socialism, thus helping us get closer to the revolution.

[Plagueround]

This brings up a very good point - not about religion, but about leftist political activity.

Socialism owed much of its growth in popularity in the late 19th century to the fact that socialist parties and organizations offered a social environment for workers to get together and help each other in times of need. It is of course perfectly true that charity and mutual aid is the equivalent of "giving a man a fish," while the revolution is the equivalent of "teaching him to fish." But still, using socialist organizations for charitable causes can do wonders for the popularity and prestige of socialism, thus helping us get closer to the revolution.

I agree with this. The notion that charity is inherently useless is a disturbing trend that seems to be concentrated to this site (part of the revleft hyper-reality I suppose). Not many people are going to listen to you if your attitude is "can't help now, gotta wait for revolution".

[Decolonize The Left]

I am deeply uncomfortable with statements like this as this is what cults say. Whether it be Objectivists, transhumanists or whatever, they present themselves as bastions of logic whereas anyone outside of them can see that they don't have an ounce of such a thing.

I am not concerned with cults, etc... Marxism is rooted in material reality and it logically draws out a set of conclusions based upon this reality.

Religion is based in a posited immaterial world which has no justification.

This isn't very complicated, or dogmatic - it's a simple observation.


Further, it is simple arrogance to say that religion is always irrational because that is not true. Catholic Priests for instance are encouraged to have degrees in philosophy which includes training in formal logic and if they do not have such a degree they are taught such things at the seminary, so right off the bat the entire clergy is meant to understand how to maintain the highest level of logic in their beliefs.

Religious texts contradict themselves left and right. Religion is centered around absolute committed belief to something which cannot be proven - how is this the "highest level of logic in their beliefs?" You can't be serious...

The highest level of logic would be aware of history and the repeated failure of religions to adequately assess anything material.


Religion necessarily bases itself on rationalism of course, whereas I strongly favour empiricism, but I can't say it is illogical simply because it uses rationalism. So long as it follows through the rest of its argument in a logically consistent manner I have to contest the starting principles, not the validity of the argument.

Name one functioning argument for the existence of God. One.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

I agree with this. The notion that charity is inherently useless is a disturbing trend that seems to be concentrated to this site (part of the revleft hyper-reality I suppose). Not many people are going to listen to you if your attitude is "can't help now, gotta wait for revolution".

I have been terribly misinterpreted.

You can help whoever you wish - whenever you want. The point is why and how you are helping them. "Charity" is demeaning and solves nothing. This is simple and straight-forward and ought to be thought about by many.

Furthermore, allow me this question:
If you really did care about people in need, I mean really care about them, why wouldn't you attack the cause of their suffering? Why wouldn't you eliminate this cause for all future generations? Is this not the most charitable one could be?

But we don't. We give Christmas dinners, and Thanksgiving turkeys and nonsense. We perpetuate a system of inequality and dependency with our 'good deeds.' And then we pat ourselves on the back and smile.

Why do we do this? Because it's easy. And we do this because (as CultofAbeLincoln has demonstrated) it allows us to flaunt our 'good deeds' when pressured, thereby making us appear to be a good person in the eyes of our criticism.

- August

[Pogue]

Nonsense. Belief in a supernatural diety/power is entirely incompatible with revolutionary politics. Why? Because revolutionary politics center around historical materialism and material reality. Religion, or theism, on the other hand, is entirely concerned with the positing of non-material things.

It is, in the first place, irrational. Revolutionary politics, on the other hand, are entirely rational and logical.

It is, in the second place, authoritarian. Revolutionary politics are anti-authoritarian.

Arguments could be made as well that theism is oppressive and destructive. Revolutionary politics is liberating and creative.

It is entirely philosophically incoherent to hold religious beliefs and yet claim to be a revolutionary leftist.

- August

This is a load of bollocks. Right now I could simply claim I believe in Allah but also believe capitalism is wrong and should be replaced with communism. There is absolutely know contradiction.

[Demogorgon]

I am not concerned with cults, etc... Marxism is rooted in material reality and it logically draws out a set of conclusions based upon this reality.

Religion is based in a posited immaterial world which has no justification.

This isn't very complicated, or dogmatic - it's a simple observation.

No it is a dogmatic statement. Marxism, properly argued for is logical, but you can hardly deny that many of the arguments you see here for Marxism have little or no logic to them.

Indeed some of your arguments here are not logical as they break the rules of logic. For instance you claim that religion is illogical because it is not based in materialism, that begs the question in favour of materialism immediately making your argument fallacious.

Don't be so quick to call others' arguments illogical simply because you disagree with them, take a step back from the argument and look at your own position to see if it is valid.


Religious texts contradict themselves left and right. Religion is centered around absolute committed belief to something which cannot be proven - how is this the "highest level of logic in their beliefs?" You can't be serious...

The highest level of logic would be aware of history and the repeated failure of religions to adequately assess anything material.
Begging the question again in favour of materialism and empiricism. You cannot say that the fact that religion is not based on materialism renders it illogical because materialism is only one competing philosophical position, we can't simply say our position is the only logical one "just because". Moreover you can't say that lack of empirical proof of God renders religion illogical because religion does not necessarily follow empiricism, indeed it usually doesn't. By rationalist standards there is sufficient evidence of God for it to be feasible, consequently we can't say that it is simply a belief plucked out of thin air.


Name one functioning argument for the existence of God. One.

- August
There are plenty and you know of most of them. If the existence of God was so clearly wrong and simple to disprove then hardly anybody would hold a belief in such an entity, even the fact that there are strong societal reasons to be religious wouldn't stop that, people would just form non-theistic religions.

The fact that the majority of people continue to believe in God shows that it is not a simple open and shut case that there is no God. As it happens I believe that there isn't a God and unlike most people here am in fact a strong atheist who has a positive believe that there is no God rather than a more general rejection of theistic arguments, but I would not for one moment have the arrogance to claim that my views were obviously true when most people presented with them would reject them. Things are only obvious when people find it so.

Again though, take a step back and look at your position. I believe your arguments are weak and at times lack logic. That is not meant as an insult but rather as a statement that atheism has no monopoly on logic. Furthermore I respectfully suggest you stop attacking strawmen and try and debate a theist knowledgeable in theology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics. Debating me is a pretty poor substitute for that because I am a convinced atheist and can only ever play Devil's Advocate. Try debating the real thing and see if you can hold your own in the debate and if your logic holds up.

I did the same myself a number of years ago and it was very beneficial. It actually made me much more assured in my atheism because when all my poor arguments against the existence of God were knocked down, I had to come up with better arguments to replace them.

[Plagueround]

I have been terribly misinterpreted.

You can help whoever you wish - whenever you want. The point is why and how you are helping them. "Charity" is demeaning and solves nothing. This is simple and straight-forward and ought to be thought about by many.

Furthermore, allow me this question:
If you really did care about people in need, I mean really care about them, why wouldn't you attack the cause of their suffering? Why wouldn't you eliminate this cause for all future generations? Is this not the most charitable one could be?

But we don't. We give Christmas dinners, and Thanksgiving turkeys and nonsense. We perpetuate a system of inequality and dependency with our 'good deeds.' And then we pat ourselves on the back and smile.

Why do we do this? Because it's easy. And we do this because (as CultofAbeLincoln has demonstrated) it allows us to flaunt our 'good deeds' when pressured, thereby making us appear to be a good person in the eyes of our criticism.

- August

I wasn't directing that at you, more so at other threads I've seen on the subject. I agree with what you're saying, but there is also a lot of good work people are doing with the intention of helping people in the short term and promoting the ideals that the left espouses. Obviously you see that difference, but I think it's important to make that distinction so as not to give the impression that we are not advocating anything but sitting back and waiting for "revolution".

I do have utter contempt for lip service organizations that try to make capitalism play nice by giving the poor a handout every now and then, then returning to their cozy suburban lifestyle or, in the case of TheThugofAbeLincoln, joining the military industrial complex in destroying the lives of others. Help the poor victims of Katrina, then sign up to bomb the poor victims of Obama.

[Random Precision]

Well, Demo has done a pretty good job here, as usual. I would like to respond to this however.


Religion results from theism - theism is the belief in an ultimate deity; religion is a set of conduct which results from said belief.

I fail to understand your note of Theravada Buddhism - it is a religion.

It is a non-theistic religion. Meaning: no gods. The two do not always go together, as demonstrated by this and several other eastern religious traditions.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You fail to acknowledge:
1) That "charity" doesn't solve anything. At all. Ever.

"Hey, do you see that guy drowning!!!! We have to save him!!!!!"

"Don't. The real problem issue is that there aren't free swimming lessons."

It's not about the long-term issue so much as the short-term need.

Not to mention this statement is false; dozens of hospitals, schools, haelth clinics, along with the near-eradication of several diseases is due to charity.


2) That "charity" misses the entire point. People are poor due to an economic system which keeps them poor. Not, as you so ignorantly claim, because there aren't enough 'good folks' around to help them.

We have an economic system which keeps people poor because there aren't enough 'good folks' to change it.


3) That "charity" is insulting to those who you wish to help. You insult their humanity by your condescending actions.

So should I have let them starve?

Should we not have go to New Orleans, instead sitting by our TV sets and remark "gee somebody should sure help them out..."?


You even further demonstrate your condescending, patronizing, attitude with your final line. You don't know me. You don't know what I've done, but you assume, since I mock your charity, that I'm 'less than you.'

That's funny. The people I helped thanked me, quite graciously. Some offered payment, which I turned down. I did it because I wanted to feel better by helping my fellow man. That was the point; if you blame me for feeling joy after my services than you can fuck off.

Unless you've helped the poor in your community, yes you are (though I admit I wasn't aiming it at you per se as those who don't do work for their fellow man. You know, in the real world outside of RevLeft). I'm going to be spending my Christmas at a soup kitchen. What are you doing for the cause on your day off?

Lastly, Charity does not simply consist of giving money. It could be anything as simple as helping your neighbor move, though in that case, I'd rather just give them money...


The last Christian died on the cross.

The last communist died rich with oil money.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

in the case of TheThugofAbeLincoln, joining the military industrial complex in destroying the lives of others. Help the poor victims of Katrina, then sign up to bomb the poor victims of Obama.

Shouldn't you be off somewhere starting a revolution?

[Plagueround]

Shouldn't you be off somewhere starting a revolution?

Well, currently I'm at work, you know, that whole wage slave thing. But since you asked, I've been spending what little spare time I have organizing support for striking Oak Harbor Freight workers in my area. [Flaming removed- Random Precision].

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If you really did care about people in need, I mean really care about them, why wouldn't you attack the cause of their suffering? Why wouldn't you eliminate this cause for all future generations? Is this not the most charitable one could be?

If you want to die fighting your government, do it NOW. People are starving at the moment, and you spending time on here arguing about accomplishes nothing.

If you're like most people, it would be painfully obvious that you can't do shit to the system, but you do have the power to improve the lives of others.


But we don't. We give Christmas dinners, and Thanksgiving turkeys and nonsense. We perpetuate a system of inequality and dependency with our 'good deeds.' And then we pat ourselves on the back and smile.

And you perpetuate it just as much, why should we not do what we can today?

If the Left offers a path to a more egalitarian society, I'd support it. But saying we shouldn't help at a time where the Left is irrelevant is nonsense, and a tad disgusting.


Why do we do this? Because it's easy. And we do this because (as CultofAbeLincoln has demonstrated) it allows us to flaunt our 'good deeds' when pressured, thereby making us appear to be a good person in the eyes of our criticism.

- August

Other than offering to destroy social institutions which provide support to billions, Atheists don't do shit. I flaunted them when I remarked that there aren't any Atheist groups that I know of which help the poor. If you can name one which helps people today, please post a link.

Serioulsy, is there an Atheist College Fund for poor kids like many Churches have? Are there any St Darwin hospitals? Not talk about why these people are poor, or how bad they have it, or how stupid religion is, but actually gets tired and sweaty doing work for people who have it worse off.

That's all. Feel free to keep all the theoretical, and irrelevant, bullshit about a post-revolutionary society to yourself. When Leftists do that it reminds me of Christians debating what Heaven will be like.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, currently I'm at work, you know, that whole wage slave thing. But since you asked, I've been spending what little spare time I have organizing support for striking Oak Harbor Freight workers in my area.

AugustWest Logic:

Giving the workers a higher wage only increases the problem.

It solves nothing, and they will still be wage slaves afterward.

No strike ever accomplished anything, all it does is show the workers are willing to accept capitalism.

God you mock them when you help.

And yes, I have stood with workers and shown solidarity (most recently at the protest over the firing of 1300 DISD teachers about a month ago), and I would definitely call it charity, if not the most conventional type.

[Flames here removed- RP]

[Random Precision]

Plagueround and Cult, consider yourselves formally warned for flaming.

[Junius]

Many leftists get worked up over the importance of atheism and how religion is such a great evil. I think there are more pertinent issues. Re-reading through Capital the other day, it seems to me that Marx seemed to hold atheism as somewhat redundant. For example:

Originally written by Marx
In the domain of Political Economy, free scientific inquiry meets not merely the same enemies as in all other domains. The peculiar nature of the materials it deals with, summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private interest. The English Established Church, e.g., will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income. Now-a-days atheism is culpa levis [a relatively slight sin, c.f. mortal sin], as compared with criticism of existing property relations.

Originally written by Marx
The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.

The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.
Marx and Engels said similar things elsewhere:

Originally written by Marx
Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism.

Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.

Originally written by Engels
Our Blanquists share the Bakuninists’ desire to represent the most far-reaching, most extreme trend. That, by the way, is why they often adopt the same means as the Bakuninists, though with opposite ends in view. The point is, therefore, to be more radical than everybody else as far as atheism is concerned. Fortunately it is easy enough to be an atheist today. Atheism is so near to being self-obvious with European working-class parties nowadays — although in certain countries it is often enough like that of the Spanish Bakuninist who maintained that it was against all socialism to believe in God but that the Virgin Mary was a different matter, every decent socialist ought naturally to believe in her. It can even be said of the German Social-Democratic workers that atheism has already outlived itself with them: this purely negative word no longer has any application as far as they are concerned inasmuch as their opposition to faith in God is no longer one of theory but one of practice; they have purely and simply finished with God, they live and think in the world of reality and are therefore materialists. This seems to be the case in France too. If not, nothing would be simpler than to have the splendid French materialistic literature of the past century spread on a large scale among the workers. For in that literature French thought made its greatest achievement both in form and in content and, considering the level of science at that time, it is still infinitely high today as far as content is concerned and has not been equalled as to form. But that cannot be to the liking of our Blanquists. In order to prove that they are the most radical of all they abolish God by decree as was done in 1793:
“Let the Commune free mankind for ever from the ghost of past misery” (God), “from that cause” (non-existing God a cause!) “of their present misery. There is no room for priests in the Commune; every religious manifestation. every religious organization must be prohibited.”
And this demand that men should be changed into atheists par ordre du mufti is signed by two members of the Commune who have really had opportunity enough to find out that first a vast amount of things can be ordered on paper without necessarily being carried out, and second, that persecution is the best means of promoting undesirable convictions! This much is sure: the only service that can be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of faith and to outdo Bismarck’s Kirchenkulturkampf laws by prohibiting religion generally....

[Plagueround]

Many leftists get worked up over the importance of atheism and how religion is such a great evil. I think there are more pertinent issues.

I agree. While I I'm not a religious person in the least, the focus on combating religion that comes from some is yet another large distraction. If anything, it turns off a lot of would be leftists.\


Plagueround and Cult, consider yourselves formally warned for flaming.

My apologies.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, whole lot to respond to since I last signed on. I'll just put on my smock to keep clean from all the moral posturing before I dive in here:


"Hey, do you see that guy drowning!!!! We have to save him!!!!!"

"Don't. The real problem issue is that there aren't free swimming lessons."

It's not about the long-term issue so much as the short-term need.

Absolutely terrible analogy... honestly, you can do better.

Man drowning = instant death.
People in need of charity =/= instant death.


Not to mention this statement is false; dozens of hospitals, schools, haelth clinics, along with the near-eradication of several diseases is due to charity.

Says... TheCultofAbeLincoln on revleft...

And furthermore, you failed to note that I used the word "solve," not "build stuff."


We have an economic system which keeps people poor because there aren't enough 'good folks' to change it.

Well isn't that sweet... we just need more good people huh? Where'd they all go?


So should I have let them starve?

If they need something, they'll ask for it. They don't need you tromping down into their 'impoverished neighborhood' will a Jesus shirt and a smile just 'helping out the poor minorities.'

Seriously...


Should we not have go to New Orleans, instead sitting by our TV sets and remark "gee somebody should sure help them out..."?

No. We should be working to eliminate the structural inequality which resulted in a thousands of black people being ignored by the white majority.


That's funny. The people I helped thanked me, quite graciously. Some offered payment, which I turned down. I did it because I wanted to feel better by helping my fellow man. That was the point; if you blame me for feeling joy after my services than you can fuck off.

Exactly. I will re-post your statement:
"I did it because I wanted to feel better by helping my fellow man."

You are using the poverty and misery of these people for your own purposes because you are unable to develop a meaningful existence on your own.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

No it is a dogmatic statement. Marxism, properly argued for is logical, but you can hardly deny that many of the arguments you see here for Marxism have little or no logic to them.

I do not deny that many arguments made for any theory have little or no logic to them. This says nothing about the theory itself, rather, about the individual arguing.


Indeed some of your arguments here are not logical as they break the rules of logic. For instance you claim that religion is illogical because it is not based in materialism, that begs the question in favour of materialism immediately making your argument fallacious.

Logic is material - it is a method of human thought. Human thought is a series of neuron synapses. To deny material reality is to deny logic.


Don't be so quick to call others' arguments illogical simply because you disagree with them, take a step back from the argument and look at your own position to see if it is valid.

Point taken.


Begging the question again in favour of materialism and empiricism. You cannot say that the fact that religion is not based on materialism renders it illogical because materialism is only one competing philosophical position, we can't simply say our position is the only logical one "just because".

Whether or not materialism is one of many philosophical positions is irrelevant - this doesn't refute anything as many philosophical positions are illogical.

And I didn't say that our position is the only logical one - I said that religion is illogical, and that materialism is logical.


Moreover you can't say that lack of empirical proof of God renders religion illogical because religion does not necessarily follow empiricism, indeed it usually doesn't.

Yes, I can. Analogy: A racist doesn't follow empiricism. Do you accept their position and refrain from critiquing it due to this?


By rationalist standards there is sufficient evidence of God for it to be feasible, consequently we can't say that it is simply a belief plucked out of thin air.

What? How is religion rational in any sense? And where is this "sufficient evidence?"


There are plenty and you know of most of them. If the existence of God was so clearly wrong and simple to disprove then hardly anybody would hold a belief in such an entity, even the fact that there are strong societal reasons to be religious wouldn't stop that, people would just form non-theistic religions.

You discount the vast amount of social conditioning which takes place. Let us recall that the 'death of God' occurred only 100 or so years ago - since then a great deal of religion has died out.

And I do not accept your answer - you claimed there were functioning arguments for the existence of God. I would like to know what you mean by this.


The fact that the majority of people continue to believe in God shows that it is not a simple open and shut case that there is no God. As it happens I believe that there isn't a God and unlike most people here am in fact a strong atheist who has a positive believe that there is no God rather than a more general rejection of theistic arguments, but I would not for one moment have the arrogance to claim that my views were obviously true when most people presented with them would reject them. Things are only obvious when people find it so.

Argument to popularity? Really?

So when 'the majority of people' believed the sky was a series of concentric circles, it actually was? And when 'most people' believed that black people were 3/5ths of a person, they actually were?

I understand that you are not arguing this position directly, but your claim is similar. Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't give it any weight in terms of truth.


Again though, take a step back and look at your position. I believe your arguments are weak and at times lack logic. That is not meant as an insult but rather as a statement that atheism has no monopoly on logic. Furthermore I respectfully suggest you stop attacking strawmen and try and debate a theist knowledgeable in theology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics. Debating me is a pretty poor substitute for that because I am a convinced atheist and can only ever play Devil's Advocate. Try debating the real thing and see if you can hold your own in the debate and if your logic holds up.

I did the same myself a number of years ago and it was very beneficial. It actually made me much more assured in my atheism because when all my poor arguments against the existence of God were knocked down, I had to come up with better arguments to replace them.

Your respectful demeanor is noted and appreciated.

I may not have the time at the moment (I work two jobs) to go find a theist 'knowledgeable in theology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics.'

Furthermore, as you pointed out, the "real thing" isn't the theist who is knowledgeable is it? Rather, it's anyone who believes in a God - lot's of people, some like CultofAbeLincoln. Why should I not debate him?

- August

[Demogorgon]

I do not deny that many arguments made for any theory have little or no logic to them. This says nothing about the theory itself, rather, about the individual arguing.

Logic is material - it is a method of human thought. Human thought is a series of neuron synapses. To deny material reality is to deny logic.

My first teacher of formal logic was an idealist. His research into the subject is credited as being superb and he has, for reasons known only to himself given his entire professional career to studying logic. I think he would take issue with your claim that you have to be a materialist to be logical.


Whether or not materialism is one of many philosophical positions is irrelevant - this doesn't refute anything as many philosophical positions are illogical.

And I didn't say that our position is the only logical one - I said that religion is illogical, and that materialism is logical.

They may be, but illogical philosophical position quickly fall out of fashion as people grow tired of rubbishing them and they lie forgotten except by those interested in the history of religious thought. The ones that stand up are very logical.


Yes, I can. Analogy: A racist doesn't follow empiricism. Do you accept their position and refrain from critiquing it due to this?
Actually racism often does attempt to use empiricism. Here is an argument I see All the time from racist South Africans:

My life was better under apartheid as was the lives of my white friends and colleagues

ergo apartheid was superior to a multi-racial political system and whites are evidently better at governing than blacks.

That argument is plain wrong and is lacking in even the most elementary logic, but the starting premise: "My life was better..." s based on experience and therefore it is an empirical argument.

Compare to a (very simplified) rationalist anti-racist argument:

We can know from a priory knowledge that humans are simply humans and distinctions based on broad groupings are arbitrary

ergo attempting to distinguish on racial grounds is not possible to do with any validity and it naturally follows that attempting to say one "group" is superior to another or even that such groups should be kept apart is ridiculous.

That argument is both logical and reaches the correct conclusion. I think the starting premise is wrong as I don't believe in a priory knowledge, but starting premises don't have to be corect for the argument itself to follow logical process.


What? How is religion rational in any sense? And where is this "sufficient evidence?"

A rationalist argument for religion (we should remind ourselves by the way that not all theists are rationalists, some are empiricists) might begin with some kind of statement of supposed human knowledge or a statement of a belief that the universe is a certain way or whatever and follow through so that a logical argument leads to a conclusion that God exists or at least probably exists. A "proof" doesn't have to show cast iron certainty in such things as the nature of the subject doesn't exactly lend itself to certainty. It just has to show reasonable evidence


You discount the vast amount of social conditioning which takes place. Let us recall that the 'death of God' occurred only 100 or so years ago - since then a great deal of religion has died out.

And I do not accept your answer - you claimed there were functioning arguments for the existence of God. I would like to know what you mean by this.Religion isn't as popular in terms of bothering to attend church, but the majority of people still tend to vaguely believe in God.

The very fact that religion is declining but people still tend to believe in God, if only vaguely shows that it is anything but obvious.


Argument to popularity? Really?

So when 'the majority of people' believed the sky was a series of concentric circles, it actually was? And when 'most people' believed that black people were 3/5ths of a person, they actually were?

I understand that you are not arguing this position directly, but your claim is similar. Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't give it any weight in terms of truth.

I knew you would say that and tried to make myself clear enough to head you off, but I shall make it clearer. I made no claim that people's belief in God made it valid but only that it meant the non-existence of God is far from obvious. For instance it is true that you can further and further divide sub-atomic particles until you eventually get to a particle that appears not to follow any conventional rules of physics, either traveling faster than light, or at least appearing to, or else switching in and out of existence. That is true to the best of our knowledge, but it is anything but obvious. We can tell it isn't obvious by the simple fact that a lay observer simply observing the world is not likely to spot that fact. Similarly the fact that a lay observer observing the world is less likely to conclude that there is no God than that there is, we can conclude that there being no God isn't obvious. Obvious things are things that anyone can spot without difficulty.


Your respectful demeanor is noted and appreciated.

I may not have the time at the moment (I work two jobs) to go find a theist 'knowledgeable in theology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics.'Well it is sometimes hard to find the time for these things. But they can generally be found if you look about philosophy boards.


Furthermore, as you pointed out, the "real thing" isn't the theist who is knowledgeable is it? Rather, it's anyone who believes in a God - lot's of people, some like CultofAbeLincoln. Why should I not debate him?

- August
Maybe, but suppose you were presented with someone skeptical of Communism. Who would you want them to debate, one of the fourteen year old idiots we sometimes get here telling us that they are "hardcore commies who beat up cappies at school" or someone with extensive knowledge of politics, economics and philosophy?

[eyedrop]

It shouldn't be that hard to find a priest knowledgeable 'theology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics'. Couldn't you just call a local church and ask for a talk with him?

I don't know where you live but here every priest have to have a 6-year education, including theology, so they should all be quite knowledable and always willing to talk as that is part of their job. (I guess having a state-church ensures well educated priests)

I can see how the time may not be permitting.

[Valeofruin]

Repost:

A question which has been posed to me a lot as of late is in reguards to what I feel is the Marxist-Leninist view on Religion, and how it differs from the views of the Maoists, particularly those in the present day, such as Bob Avakian and his latest book ‘Away With All Gods’ which you have undoubtably read. As a topic I feel confident in, I will attempt to answer this question as best I can, and let you decide your opinions on it, to put this question to rest.

When beginning a logical analysis of religion one can’t help but ask the fundamental question: “What is Religion?” It is here that we begin our Analysis, and it is here already where we begin to see fundamental flaws in the Maoist approach on religion.

To begin answering this fundamental question we must use the words of Marx. These word have become famous for their slogan ‘Religion is the Opiate of the Masses’ but rarely is the full quote (which is quite long), offered up to further investigate what is meant by such a statement;

“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.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.”

This ever so popular quote has been and always will be, the cornerstone of the Marxist-Leninist view on religion. It explains where it came from, and how to rid ourselves of it. However over the years new explanations have arisen, new ‘tactics’ designed to ‘Combat’ religion have been presented. Prior to 1910 a Glorious Revolutionary leader by the name of V I Lenin, combated some of these false, Anti-Marxist Vulgarisations, apparently to no avail, as we still see them to this day.

However before I go any further I must accredit one such Revisionist, Mao Zedong for offering us something positive as well. In his work ‘Dialectical Materialism’ which I will cite at least once more in this essay, he made 1 critical contribution, that helps us better define and understand Religion.

He said:
“The whole history of philosophy is the history of the struggle and the development of two mutually opposed schools of philosophy -- idealism and materialism. All philosophical currents and schools are manifestations of these two fundamental schools.
All philosophical theories have been created by men belonging to a definite social class. The ideas of these men have moreover been historically determined by a definite social existence. All philosophical doctrines express the needs of a definite social class and reflect the level of development of the productive forces of society and the historical stage in men's comprehension of nature . . . “
This knowledge as insignificant as it may appear, helps us to draw 1 important conclusion about Religion:
Religion is a Manifestation, Development a type of Idealism.
However good Mao’s work may be however, already he begins to make his first error in reguards to the question of Idealism, and in turn to question of Religion. He begins his analysis by noting “The social origins of idealism and materialism lie in a social structure marked by class contradictions. The earliest appearance of idealism was the product of the ignorance and superstition of savage and primitive man.”, which is mostly true, however he then goes on to note:
“On the one hand, in its own interest, the oppressing class must develop and reinforce its idealist doctrines. On the other hand, the oppressed classes, likewise in their own interest, must develop and reinforce their materialist doctrines. Both idealism and materialism are weapons in the class struggle, and the struggle between idealism and materialism cannot disappear so long as classes continue to exist. Idealism, in the process of its historical development, represents the ideology of the exploiting classes and serves reactionary purposes.”
He Continues:
“Consequently, the history of the struggle between idealism and materialism in philosophy reflects the struggle of interests between the reactionary class and the revolutionary class…. A given philosophical tendency is in the last analysis a manifestation in a particular guise of the policy of the social class to which the philosophers belong.”
While it is true that: “Consequently, the history of the struggle between idealism and materialism in philosophy reflects the struggle of interests between the reactionary class and the revolutionary class”
It is important to note that Religion, as a manifestation of Idealism, is not always developed by the ruling class. Quite to the contrary, Religion as Mao points out was born of ‘primitive mans superstitions’ and was further adapted, and fully accepted by the exploited class, not the bourgeois; as Marx points out:
“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.”
Religion was Created by man to mask their suffering with illusions and fantasy. However the basic religion is clearly not the product of the exploiting class, and hence contrary to Maos conclusions not ALL idealist philosophy is bourgeois philosophy.
To correct Maos statements; it is more proper to make the critical distinction that: All Idealism in its nature SERVES the Interests of the Ruling class, while Materialism, and more specifically the Dialectical Materialism of Marx and Engels seeks to liberate the exploited masses.
Mao was also not entirely incorrect when he says that the Bourgeois have a hand in developing, or more properly put distorting religion.
The bourgeois, without a doubt have twisted religion to better service them. Religion has been converted into a weapon used by the exploiters to better control and hence better exploit the masses. The Church of the Bourgeois has created many myths and lies reguarding their respective Religions, designed to control the masses through fear and intimidation as well as fantasy and subordination. However the footprint of the original Religion, as developed and adopted by the working people so long ago is not entirely absent, particularly in Christianity, the most widespread religion here in America.
Lenin recognized this briefly in ‘The State and Revolution’:
“The thing done is to keep silent about it as if it were a piece of old-fashioned “naivete”, just as Christians, after their religion had been given the status of state religion, “forgot” the “naivete” of primitive Christianity with its democratic revolutionary spirit.”
The ruling classes have done much to ‘dust over’ the parts of the bible, or similarly the Quran and Torah, you name it really, that retain their old working class spirit, and replace them with falsifications, designed of course to mislead the exploited masses. They are constantly attempting to mold religion, but they in no way created, or developed it as Maoists suggest.
The conclusions we draw from this are as follows;
Religion is an Idealist fantasy, created by primitive man, that seeks to provide an escape from all that is miserable in ones life. It’s a source of comfort and hope for the working masses, who are left stranded and hopeless in the dark world of bondage. Religion and Idealism are ideas that work only to strengthen the bourgeois, as it keeps the proletariat occupied with fantasy as opposed to reality. The bourgeois often exploit these fantasies, and attempt to change them, to make us go beyond being simply submissive, to make us in fact work better for them. However we must never forget these are our fantasies, originally we crafted these thoughts. Not all Idealist philosophy is the work of the bourgeois, and not all Materialist philosophy was created by the Proletariat. Reguardless of this it still holds true that religion IS a reflection of Social Conditions, of this noone will dispute.
It also still holds true that modern religion as it has been molded by the bourgeois teaches that:
“Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people.”- Lenin
However we must strive to understand where this idealology comes from, who created it, why did they create it, who influences it, etc. Before we can venture into discussing proper tactics reguarding religion.
This bring us to our next question; “That’s Nice, but what exactly do we do about religion?”
On this issue the modern Maoists, in particular Bob Avakian, clearly lack all understanding of the Marxist- Leninist view of Religion. To Quote Mr. Avakian:
“The hold of religion on masses of people, including among the most oppressed, is a major shackle on them, and a major obstacle to mobilizing them to fight for their own emancipation and to be emancipators of all humanity--and it must be approached and struggled against." (Bob Avakian, Away With All Gods, pg. 114, 2008, Insight Press)
Now I know what you’re thinking, “Didn’t Marx already cover this?” This is a perfectly acceptable question to ask, I in fact asked it myself, the answer is: YES, he did.

“. 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.”

However apparently Mr. Avakian did not get the point, and so here we embark on a wonderful journey in which Lenin comes to a rescue with a Lesson on basic Marxist Tactics in reguards to religion.

On this topic Lenin wrote 2 very important pamphlets; “Socialism and Religion” in 1905 and “The Attitude of the Workers Party Towards Religion” in 1909. In an effort to thwart a misconception I was presented with over MSN I will include quotes from both pamphlets to support my thesis.

First and foremost the error that started to show itself in the early Mao, that is now apparently a problem in the Maoist movement, is the underestimation of the bond between religion and class struggle. As we determined when answering our previous question Religion was created by the working masses to mask our own misery. Religion is very much stitched to the fabric of class struggle, as Mao so kindly pointed out, without class struggle there would be no religion, at least not as we know it. We must always remember this.

No matter how exploited Religion is by the ruling class, we must never lose sight of the fact that the primary goal is the economic emancipation of the working class. After all, there would be no need for a mask if there was no ugly face to hide.

However some people view religion as some sort of obstacle that needs to be cleared. They break apart religion from the class struggle, they tear the stitching and attempt to make a separate issue of religion. They declare open ‘Wars’ on religion, and publish pathetic pamphlets. They advance religion to a position where it does not belong, and devote excess energy to destroying the mask as opposed to shedding the proletariat of their chains. These are the same people who declare cultural revolutions and burn churches, and bar ‘Idealists’ from entering their party and claim to have established a party in the Image of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.

Lenin Begins his analysis of the Marxist-Leninist attitude towards Religion in ‘Socialism and Religion’ when he said:

“Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state.”


The first important observation of the great Lenin, was that Socialism is a Private affair in Relation to the State, but not to the Party. By this he clarifies that it is meant that religion to the government is not an issue to be addressed and a public position is not to be adopted. Religion must receive its funding entirely from the pockets of working people. Lenin clarifies that it is the right of the working people to congregate wherever they please, and profess any religion they wish. It is a private affair, a choice to be made by individuals, no different then selecting what color underwear to wear in the Morning, or how many times a day to floss ones teeth.

However Lenin clarifies what is meant when it is said that religion CAN NOT be a private affair in relation to the party. Lenin warmly points out that:

“Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.”

It is for this reason that a Marxist-Leninist party of course, can not adopt a policy that is anything but hostile towards religion, as that is what Materialism is. Lenin explains that Materialism is inherently hostile towards religion. It is here that the debate over tactics begins. Lenin explains that to bar religious Comrades from joining the party, and hence to completely purge the party of idealism is an entirely errorous and unproductive strategy.

Lenin begins his attack on the ever so common misconceptions of his day by stating that:

“Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.
If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?
The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.”
While it is true that a Marxist-Leninist Party must understand the connections of religion to class struggle, and while the party must combat religion through the promotion of Dialectical Materialism, which in turn supports the end of Religion What the Maoists and other Anti-Marxist elements fail to understand, is that this does not mean we must combat religion apart from class struggle. We can not wage war on religion, per se, we must rather learn to combat religion, by combating the bourgeois. I could elaborate on this, but I feel it’s more appropriate to allow Lenin to explain this position for me. He says in ‘The Attitude of the Workers Party Towards Religion’:
“Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.[1] Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.
At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be “more left” or “more revolutionary” than the Social-Democrats, to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out. Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social practice, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers’ party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering.”
He Confirms this line 4 years earlier in “Socialism and Religion” when he said:

“But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.
That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various “Christians”. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development. “
The first observation that I would like to point out is Lenins statement about the ‘Inconsistency’ of the Christians, this is an important idea to note, along with the quote given earlier in this essay, when considering our stances on Christianity. The second is Lenins observation that religion should not be advanced to first place, where it does not belong, or second place for that matter. We must never address religion as Mr. Avakian does, viewing it as an obstacle in our revolution as opposed to an issue attached to our struggle against the bourgeois, an issue that will be inherently addressed after the downfall of capitalism. “To declare such a war on religion, Engels says, is to ‘out-Bismarck Bismarck’”

Does Lenin Stop here? I think not!

Lenin makes it clear that not only should religious comrades be permitted to enter the party, he not only makes it clear that a comrades Religious beliefs are subordinated to his willingness to fight for the economic emancipation of his class.

Lenin also explains what he views as proper tactics in reguards to ‘combating religion’. First and foremost in education. The single most important thing we can do, is take religious cadres under our wing and educate them. It is our responsibility to promote class consciousness, Dialectical Materialism, and hence Atheism in our Party. However Lenin clarifies that the decision to abandon religion is entirely left to the individual. Marxist-Leninists can in no way force people to abandon religion.

The best we can do is lead the horse to water, we must give people a choice through education, and take them in reguardless of their religious beliefs, and help them to fight their oppressors.

As Lenin Says:

“the proletariat will wage a broad and open struggle for the elimination of economic slavery, the true source of the religious humbugging of mankind.”

He also says:

“Everywhere the reactionary bourgeoisie has concerned itself, and is now beginning to concern itself in Russia, with the fomenting of religious strife—in order thereby to divert the attention of the masses from the really important and fundamental economic and political problems, now being solved in practice by the all-Russian proletariat uniting in revolutionary struggle.”

We must remember this when approaching religion. The only way to combat religion is by TAKING IN religious comrades, and promoting class struggle.

“No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism.” –Lenin

In conclusion my critique of the Errors being made by many false-Flag Leninists today can be summed up quite simply, as Lenin puts it in “The Attitude of the Workers Party Towards Religion”

“No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way.
Does this mean that educational books against religion are harmful or unnecessary? No, nothing of the kind. It means that Social-Democracy’s atheist propaganda must be subordinated to its basic task—the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters.”
Books such as Bob Avakians ‘Away With All Gods’ Appear to have forgotten this fact.
So in conclusion I say to all of you, let us put this trivial question of religion out of our heads, and dedicate our energy where it belongs; The Class struggle. Let us stop chasing ghosts and shadows, let us leave this task to the RCP. Let us take in Religious Comrades, who agree to abide by the principles of Democratic Centralism, and agree to uphold our Materialist positions, reguardless of their personal beliefs and introduce them to Dialectical Materialism, and have some faith of our own in the fact that;
“No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism.” - Lenin

[Decolonize The Left]

My first teacher of formal logic was an idealist. His research into the subject is credited as being superb and he has, for reasons known only to himself given his entire professional career to studying logic. I think he would take issue with your claim that you have to be a materialist to be logical.

I didn't say that one has "to be a materialist to be logical." If you could point me to where I've said that, I'll retract that statement.

Here's what I did say:
- Materialism is logical.
- Logic is material.


They may be, but illogical philosophical position quickly fall out of fashion as people grow tired of rubbishing them and they lie forgotten except by those interested in the history of religious thought. The ones that stand up are very logical.

You sure about that? I will agree that the history of philosophy has been a progressive development in logical reasoning of various philosophical systems, but it doesn't follow that the logical ones 'lasted the longest.'

Popularity is not a determinant of logic, or truth.


Actually racism often does attempt to use empiricism. Here is an argument I see All the time from racist South Africans:

My life was better under apartheid as was the lives of my white friends and colleagues

ergo apartheid was superior to a multi-racial political system and whites are evidently better at governing than blacks.

That argument is plain wrong and is lacking in even the most elementary logic, but the starting premise: "My life was better..." s based on experience and therefore it is an empirical argument.

Compare to a (very simplified) rationalist anti-racist argument:

We can know from a priory knowledge that humans are simply humans and distinctions based on broad groupings are arbitrary

ergo attempting to distinguish on racial grounds is not possible to do with any validity and it naturally follows that attempting to say one "group" is superior to another or even that such groups should be kept apart is ridiculous.

That argument is both logical and reaches the correct conclusion. I think the starting premise is wrong as I don't believe in a priory knowledge, but starting premises don't have to be corect for the argument itself to follow logical process.

I was saying that it's illogical to believe without empirical proof, I realize that this is an improper use of the word 'illogical.' I believe 'irrational' would be better suited here.


A rationalist argument for religion (we should remind ourselves by the way that not all theists are rationalists, some are empiricists) might begin with some kind of statement of supposed human knowledge or a statement of a belief that the universe is a certain way or whatever and follow through so that a logical argument leads to a conclusion that God exists or at least probably exists. A "proof" doesn't have to show cast iron certainty in such things as the nature of the subject doesn't exactly lend itself to certainty. It just has to show reasonable evidence

I'm not convinced it shows 'reasonable evidence.' I'm not convinced it shows any evidence at all.


Religion isn't as popular in terms of bothering to attend church, but the majority of people still tend to vaguely believe in God.

But this speaks nothing for the reasons why they believe in God.


The very fact that religion is declining but people still tend to believe in God, if only vaguely shows that it is anything but obvious.

Perhaps, but religion and theism tend to move together. For example, attempt to locate in history a theist belief that was not accompanied by a religion and yet has survived through generations.


I knew you would say that and tried to make myself clear enough to head you off, but I shall make it clearer. I made no claim that people's belief in God made it valid but only that it meant the non-existence of God is far from obvious. For instance it is true that you can further and further divide sub-atomic particles until you eventually get to a particle that appears not to follow any conventional rules of physics, either traveling faster than light, or at least appearing to, or else switching in and out of existence. That is true to the best of our knowledge, but it is anything but obvious. We can tell it isn't obvious by the simple fact that a lay observer simply observing the world is not likely to spot that fact. Similarly the fact that a lay observer observing the world is less likely to conclude that there is no God than that there is, we can conclude that there being no God isn't obvious. Obvious things are things that anyone can spot without difficulty.

In your example you have assumed that this 'lay observer' is free of all conditioning - this isn't reasonable.


Well it is sometimes hard to find the time for these things. But they can generally be found if you look about philosophy boards.

Perhaps I shall - do you have any recommendations?


Maybe, but suppose you were presented with someone skeptical of Communism. Who would you want them to debate, one of the fourteen year old idiots we sometimes get here telling us that they are "hardcore commies who beat up cappies at school" or someone with extensive knowledge of politics, economics and philosophy?

Point taken.

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Absolutely terrible analogy... honestly, you can do better.

Man drowning = instant death.
People in need of charity =/= instant death.

In the case following Katrina, the Tsunami, and a whole host of other natural disasters it certainly might have.


Says... TheCultofAbeLincoln on revleft...

:confused: What do you mean by this?


And furthermore, you failed to note that I used the word "solve," not "build stuff."

:confused: I think you may have misinterpreted what I am saying to me believing that Charity alone can solve the problems our society has been plagued with for centuries. I'm not. I wish it could, but it can't. Men aren't divine, unfortunately.


Well isn't that sweet... we just need more good people huh? Where'd they all go?

What are you implying by this?

I believe that most socialists hold the ideology they do because they believe it would be good for the mass of humanity, not because they believe it's inevitable and are just hopping on the bandwagon.



If they need something, they'll ask for it. They don't need you tromping down into their 'impoverished neighborhood' will a Jesus shirt and a smile just 'helping out the poor minorities.'

Yeah, maybe if they ask really nicely......:rolleyes:


No. We should be working to eliminate the structural inequality which resulted in a thousands of black people being ignored by the white majority.

Along with millions of poor whites, latinos, asians, arabs...and the list goes on.

I didn't go to help preserve a system of inequality, I went because I felt I could help people at the moment. I don't have the power to change the system, but I do have the power to positively affect the lives of others.


Exactly. I will re-post your statement:
"I did it because I wanted to feel better by helping my fellow man."

You are using the poverty and misery of these people for your own purposes because you are unable to develop a meaningful existence on your own.


I feel that helping people outside of my own small life does indeed help give meaning to my life. So I don't deny your accusation at all, nor do I see what you're trying to accuse me of. The bigger issue I see is just the opposite, people who simply don't give a fuck about the poor, even believe that those people deserve their lot in life.

How does doing Charity work translate into attempting to hold people down? That makes absolutely no sense, and the idea that wealthy people should not give to Charity, as you seem to imply, seems rather sick to me.

There may be a time when we have a system which eliminates inequality. But I don't see Jesus coming back for a while. Until then, there will always be a place for charity.

[Decolonize The Left]

In the case following Katrina, the Tsunami, and a whole host of other natural disasters it certainly might have.

No, it wouldn't - you witnessing a single person drowning is not analogous to a natural disaster.


:confused: What do you mean by this?

I mean that you just posited a statement as truth - I was merely contextualizing the statement.


:confused: I think you may have misinterpreted what I am saying to me believing that Charity alone can solve the problems our society has been plagued with for centuries. I'm not. I wish it could, but it can't. Men aren't divine, unfortunately.

It's quite possible that misunderstandings have taken place - this is an internet forum devoid of actual physical interaction and the large amount of information which is communicated through such physicality.

But to respond, you are not coherent in this statement. For on the one hand you say that we cannot change the system, yet on the other you say that charity cannot solve the problems of our society. Aside from this being an absolutely depressing and hopeless worldview, it is incoherent because people built, run, and control the system - and given the good Christian you are, you certainly understand that people can, and often do, change.


What are you implying by this?

You said: "We have an economic system which keeps people poor because there aren't enough 'good folks' to change it."

I noted how completely ignorant, degrading, blind, and insulting, that statement was with sarcasm.


I believe that most socialists hold the ideology they do because they believe it would be good for the mass of humanity, not because they believe it's inevitable and are just hopping on the bandwagon.

All socialists hold the ideology because they believe it would be good for the vast majority of individuals.


Yeah, maybe if they ask really nicely......:rolleyes:

You miss the point entirely. By just hopping on down in your Jesus van to the local poor district, to 'help' those in need, you are treating them like animals unable to act for themselves. You are insulting them by patronizing them.


Along with millions of poor whites, latinos, asians, arabs...and the list goes on.

I was referring to Katrina, I don't know what you're talking about.


I didn't go to help preserve a system of inequality, I went because I felt I could help people at the moment. I don't have the power to change the system, but I do have the power to positively affect the lives of others.

You do have the power to change the system - only that power is shared by all workers. And furthermore, changing the system is positively affecting the lives of others.


I feel that helping people outside of my own small life does indeed help give meaning to my life. So I don't deny your accusation at all, nor do I see what you're trying to accuse me of. The bigger issue I see is just the opposite, people who simply don't give a fuck about the poor, even believe that those people deserve their lot in life.

I know it gives meaning to your life, this was obvious when you started flaunting it left and right in this thread.


How does doing Charity work translate into attempting to hold people down? That makes absolutely no sense, and the idea that wealthy people should not give to Charity, as you seem to imply, seems rather sick to me.

There may be a time when we have a system which eliminates inequality. But I don't see Jesus coming back for a while. Until then, there will always be a place for charity.

I didn't say that wealthy people shouldn't give to charity, ever. I was critiquing the notion of charity in general - people can do as they please.

And it does not surprise me that you wait for Jesus while you perform your charity - such a sheep-like attitude towards life is common among Christians. It is also no surprise that you deny the will and determination of other people as you have little of your own.

- August

[Invincible Summer]

This is hardly the case as I've seen the world. For example, when Katrina hit I went with a church group and volunteered in the aftermath.

Know how many atheist groups I saw?

zip

Were you there every single day, and are still there now? You cannot base your claim that no atheist groups helped at all on your limited time there.


Want to know how the secular version of the private Charities (FEMA) was doing at helping their fellow Americans?

Worse than the Berlin Airlift. If the government had given my group 1% of what we wasted on FEMA we could have helped so much more...

But that is, of course, a limited incident, which nevertheless showed how much more efficient and better Charity is than faith in a godless, secular system in a time of great need. Unfortunately, we live in a mostly-Godless society and there were fewer volunteers than needed.

I don't see what FEMA has to do with godlessness. Yes, they did a shitty job, but it's not because they're secular. That's a ridiculous claim. Charity can be secular too.


Secondly, there seems to be this notion that religion is forced upon people.

This may be true in Muslim countries, but it is far from the case here, where millions go to Church despite the fact that they were required to take Biology, despite the fact that one person after another denies God, and, what's furthermore, at least the same % of poor attend Church as the wealthy.

The fact is they choose to go.

I never agreed with this typical atheist argument. While it's true that many children grow up in a household where religion may be practiced, at some point they (should, and usually do) have the choice to choose whether or not they like it.



Because even if they deny morality, ancient scripture, or God himself, what no atheist has to offer is the social structure of the Church.

What all you Lefties failed to realize was the while you were researching the oppressed, they were attending Church, teahing their children in an environment in which they are taught that there is a power greater than themself.

It's quite narrow-minded and ignorant of you to assume that "lefties" only spend all their time "researching."


How many of you can justly claim that your Leftist Group watched children while their single mother was working?
Went to visit people battling terminal diseases with no intent other than offering support?
Delivered dinner to a family while the mother was pregnant?
Pooled resources so that someone can keep their refridgerator stocked and the lights on when they became unemployed? Then, of course, helped them to find employment?
Organized food stores so that noone goes hungry?
Organized service projets to clean up streams, highways, and other places?

I've done all of these things with my Church (which is the Church of my choosing), many many times. I also grew up in a family that had to depend on the Churchmembers for support from time to time.

Well aren't you special? That's one thing I hate about Christians - they always want show how "righteous" they are.

"Lefties" don't have to work in explicitly left groups. You may have some atheist "lefties" who work with NGOs that provide the services you talk about. An athiest "lefty" can still work or help out a non-secular organization - they don't have to believe in Jesus Christ or whatever to want to provide social assistance.


Furthermore, some of the more revolutionary leftists will say that all this social assistance simply hampers revolutionary conditions. There must be apparent material injustice in order for people to see the failings of capitalism.

What's more, a deep enough belief in a higher power just deludes people into believing that the suffering of this world is just temporary until they die and "join the lord jesus christ." People's suffering is real. Religion is simply a tool in order to pacify the masses from revolting against an oppressive system.

[Anti Freedom]

It shouldn't be that hard to find a priest knowledgeable 'theology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics'. Couldn't you just call a local church and ask for a talk with him?

I don't know where you live but here every priest have to have a 6-year education, including theology, so they should all be quite knowledable and always willing to talk as that is part of their job. (I guess having a state-church ensures well educated priests)

I can see how the time may not be permitting.

It might be hard, a lot of priests aren't that knowledgeable. They are educated enough to go out into the world, but I have heard a lot of stories about priests who know very little(like even one who was relatively ignorant on the problem of evil). I mean, yes, they have years of education, but honestly, I've talked to a Presby preacher once who did not seem to know about lapsarianism(Presby's are Calvinists, and the notion of lapsarianism is a well-known aspect of Calvinist theology), "Theodicy" by Liebniz(one of the first theodicies, mocked by Voltaire in Candide, and still often believed by well-known figures such as John Piper), and who seemed incapable of understanding my attack on the notion that God was timeless. Seriously, ignorant, and I even had somebody argue that I was going rough on this guy, who had gotten a Masters degree in his religion, and taught it for years, because he had difficulty with my questions.

Talking to a knowledgeable person of religion is great, most aren't knowledgeable.

[Lynx]

As posted by Valeofruin. In essence, religion is not to be attacked. It will only wither away as a consequence of worker's emancipation from capitalism. Separation of church and state is largely already done.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No, it wouldn't - you witnessing a single person drowning is not analogous to a natural disaster.

I was referencing to people who have the means to act failing to do so in times of great need is slightly disturbing.

Of course, people with the means fail to act everyday, bu that's a bigger issue.


I mean that you just posited a statement as truth - I was merely contextualizing the statement.

Ok.


It's quite possible that misunderstandings have taken place - this is an internet forum devoid of actual physical interaction and the large amount of information which is communicated through such physicality.

You're right.


But to respond, you are not coherent in this statement. For on the one hand you say that we cannot change the system, yet on the other you say that charity cannot solve the problems of our society. Aside from this being an absolutely depressing and hopeless worldview, it is incoherent because people built, run, and control the system - and given the good Christian you are, you certainly understand that people can, and often do, change.

When I wrote the we in the sense of not changing the system, I meant we the few who may understand that the system is in true need of change. If enough people realized this, then Charity could bridge the gap much easier, one may speculate that this could solve almost every physical problem.

However, we have failed to change it, and until the others change nothing will.



You said: "We have an economic system which keeps people poor because there aren't enough 'good folks' to change it."

I noted how completely ignorant, degrading, blind, and insulting, that statement was with sarcasm.

Then try this one: "Poop people are poor because they're too stupid to realize they're getting fucked."

And that is the sole fault of we.



You miss the point entirely. By just hopping on down in your Jesus van to the local poor district, to 'help' those in need, you are treating them like animals unable to act for themselves. You are insulting them by patronizing them.

They are unable to act for themselves, as they don't have the means to provide enough for themselves and, hopefully, give back to their community.



You do have the power to change the system - only that power is shared by all workers. And furthermore, changing the system is positively affecting the lives of others.

Where'd all the workers go?



I know it gives meaning to your life, this was obvious when you started flaunting it left and right in this thread.

Of course.


I didn't say that wealthy people shouldn't give to charity, ever. I was critiquing the notion of charity in general - people can do as they please.

And it does not surprise me that you wait for Jesus while you perform your charity - such a sheep-like attitude towards life is common among Christians. It is also no surprise that you deny the will and determination of other people as you have little of your own.

- August

Denying their will and determination? What a ridiculous claim, nobody has to accept my help if they feel degraded by me doing so. If someone wants to carry all the groceries themselves with a broken leg to prove they're a man is their deal.

But that's not going to sop me from offering.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Were you there every single day, and are still there now? You cannot base your claim that no atheist groups helped at all on your limited time there.

True.



I don't see what FEMA has to do with godlessness. Yes, they did a shitty job, but it's not because they're secular. That's a ridiculous claim. Charity can be secular too.My point was that I don't believe a completely secular system would create a world in which there would be no need of charity.



I never agreed with this typical atheist argument. While it's true that many children grow up in a household where religion may be practiced, at some point they (should, and usually do) have the choice to choose whether or not they like it.Exactly.


It's quite narrow-minded and ignorant of you to assume that "lefties" only spend all their time "researching."My pint was that to many lefties the goal seems to offer no real alternative to the social structure of the church, but merely pointing to research to strip this away.



Well aren't you special? That's one thing I hate about Christians - they always want show how "righteous" they are. Me? Righteous?


"Lefties" don't have to work in explicitly left groups. You may have some atheist "lefties" who work with NGOs that provide the services you talk about. An athiest "lefty" can still work or help out a non-secular organization - they don't have to believe in Jesus Christ or whatever to want to provide social assistance.This is true.


Furthermore, some of the more revolutionary leftists will say that all this social assistance simply hampers revolutionary conditions. There must be apparent material injustice in order for people to see the failings of capitalism.Of course, that's why a lot of Christians do it.


What's more, a deep enough belief in a higher power just deludes people into believing that the suffering of this world is just temporary until they die and "join the lord jesus christ." People's suffering is real. Religion is simply a tool in order to pacify the masses from revolting against an oppressive system.First, you show no respect. I would argue that religious practices, such as ceremonial burial, helped civilize us, develop writing and seperate us from the animals.

Second, your disrespect to religion only hampers the cause. People believe in God because they want to believe, but if somebody uses that belief to neglect the fact of their being fucked in this existence that's their own problem. Religion has tied people together vastly predating the capitalist system, so saying that it's a tool to preserve that economic system is flawed.

To say that it's a tool of oppression is to say that man is inherently oppressed by reality and thereby we will always be oppressed by mortality.

[Invincible Summer]

Second, your disrespect to religion only hampers the cause. People believe in God because they want to believe, but if somebody uses that belief to neglect the fact of their being fucked in this existence that's their own problem. Religion has tied people together vastly predating the capitalist system, so saying that it's a tool to preserve that economic system is flawed.

To say that it's a tool of oppression is to say that man is inherently oppressed by reality and thereby we will always be oppressed by mortality.

Well, feudalism was pre-capitalist, and that medieval society is the best example of using religion to oppress. Obviously that doesn't happen today, but the point is that religion can and has been used to convince people that their place in an oppressive society is God's plan and therefore there is no need to try and overthrow it, lest you be labelled an "atheist" (a heinous charge back in the day).

I'm not saying that religion directly preserves the economic system, but that it draws people into believing that this life will pass and the "real" life with God in heaven is awaiting; therefore, nothing should really be done about this life as it is temporary and a "test" for man, put in place by God.

Also, suggesting that religion = reality is strange to me. Most people acknowledge that God cannot be proven as true nor false - therefore, how can one say that religion is "real" when its basis for existence is up in the air?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

AugustWest kicked my ass. I give up.