Remove Chimx from the HPG?

This is false. I have argued that biocentricism is an grounded in anthropocentricism, fulfilling subjective personal or emotional needs of the individual, something that most people here agreed with if I'm not mistaken.

Ok, but do you, or do you not, agree that there are two opposite ways of thought -- anthropocentrism (putting humanity in the center) and biocentrism (regarding of all life as equal)? The group is founded on this idea, it's purpose being opposition to biocentrism and promotion of anthropocentrism.

Marx, the inventor of scientific socialism, is not applying revolutionary theory scientifically enough for you?

I am arguing for a view of religion from the scientific socialist perspective. It is a perspective grounded in materialism (atheism) that views religion as a symptom of class society rather than a cause. Asking for my removal and calling me "dogmatic" is just a way to avoid a discussion on the idea.

In the 19th century Europe was wallowing in superstition to a much larger degree than it is today. Now we have countries like modern Sweden, where a huge majority doesn't believe in God (80% according to some figures I've seen). The situation has changed since the time of Marx, opening up the opportunity of success for more active atheist agitation.

Furthermore, as there is a class society in Sweden last I checked, it can be effectively argued that Marx has been proven wrong by history in this aspect -- religion diminishes in welfare state capitalism as well, not merely in socialism. Something he obviously couldn't have taken into account.

This discussion is for the Religion forum and not this group however..

Once again, the group is not for orthodox marxists who see Marx' word as law -- it's for people who are capable of recognising that times change, and ideologies which don't develop die. It regards the working class of this century, not merely the most advanced vanguard, as fully capable of scientific thought and aims to promote it amongst them.

As there clearly is a disagreement between the purpose of the group and your position, why don't you just start a new group for people who agree with you, or argue your views on the general forums?

The situation has changed since the time of Marx, opening up the opportunity of success for more active atheist agitation.

Ok, but do you, or do you not, agree that there are two opposite ways of thought -- anthropocentrism (putting humanity in the center) and biocentrism (regarding of all life as equal)? The group is founded on this idea, it's purpose being opposition to biocentrism and promotion of anthropocentrism.

I've discussed this before plenty: Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism v. 2.0

Yes, of course there are more religious people than atheists in the world, considering the high birthrates in the third world it's really no wonder. None the less is religion on the decline in the more secular ones of the advanced, capitalist first world nations, and has been for a while.

It declines when living standards are heightened and secular education is provided, not when class society is overthrown. Marx was wrong, and you ignoring this point of mine doesn't make it go away.

I've discussed this before plenty: Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism v. 2.0

Yepp, and you disagreed with the position the group was founded upon: 'that there are two opposite ways of thought -- anthropocentrism (putting humanity in the center) and biocentrism (regarding of all life as equal)'. While the founding members of HPG do recognise biocentrism as a reactionary and comparatively strong ideological current within left wing politics, you think it's just 'displaced egotism' and that anthropocentrism vs biocentrism is a false binary.

So, we have a group dedicated to the promotion of anthropocentrism, atheism and science. You more or less disagree with all of this -- you have said that you think 'unapologetic' anthropocentrism is wrong, and that the promotion of atheism is alienating.

What about science? Religion is the opposite of science, and you seem content with workers being deluded by it.

The other purpose of this group is to combat biocentrism. Oh wait, it doesn't exist.

Why, oh why are you in here.. I'm becoming more and more inclined to believe that it's either to be in as many groups as possible for whatever reason, or for the same reason that you applied to the HU.

We want to counter that and offer something optimistic, not something apologist and defeatist.

So when I made a thread in this forum praising the possibility of scientifically created artificial life, I was being defeatist? When I made posts in S&E lauding the creation of bionic eyes and how the technology could be used for other things that could improve human senses, that was apologizing to primitivism? When I made a thread in here discussing how technological advances within capitalism have the potential of undermining areas of scarcity within capitalism, that was pessimism?

As for believers...

They are often the ones that elect the priests in their local churches. I know this is true with Anglicans and Protestants (I imagine it isn't true with Catholics). Bishops are elected by their local diocese. These people are recallable. The bishop of the Montana Episcopal diocese was actually recalled a few years ago.

Tell me what you think the implications are of attacking the leaders of an institution that these believers voluntarily belong to out of personal conviction, and who have a significant amount of say in the who leads their community?

Topic split -- please discuss Marx' views on religion in the new thread (link, and whether or not Chimx fills the membership criteria of this group in this one.

Religion is the opposite of science

People that argue that science is the opposite of religion are a half step away from the religious fundamentalists that try to impose religious beliefs as science.

Anybody that has ever actually bothered to study theology would know that both are ignorant statements. Religion is best defined as the [i]ritualization[i] and codification of beliefs within a community. These beliefs may be material or immaterial (an example of a ritualized material belief system could possibly be aspects of Buddhism which is ultimately an atheistic religion).

you think it's just 'displaced egotism' and that anthropocentrism vs biocentrism is a false binary.

There is a deep irony to this assertion, that can in a way, sum up my irritation with your views. But to explain it to you, I'll have to teach you a little about the past two thousand years of human culture.

The first significant monotheistic religion was created by a philosopher named Zoroaster about 2500 years ago. He suggested the existence of a divine God who created a world that was antithetical to chaos and disorder. Within Zoroaster's religion was an evil spirit however that gave rise to disorderly and harmful thoughts and actions. Because of this dualism, Zoroaster emphasized the necessity of practicing healthy thoughts and rejecting destructive thoughts. Thus, he was also the creator of the duality between good and evil.

Christianity grew slowly for the first few hundred years of its existence, but by 313ish it was legalized in Rome and spent the next 300 years spreading throughout Europe. Up until this point, Christianity did little to really emphasize the duality of good and evil. This was Zoroastrian territory.

That was until the theologian and philosopher Saint Augustine came onto the scene in the 4th century. He was the person that noted the duality of man by emphasizing the distinction between man's "spirit" and his "flesh", between good and evil.

What is interesting about Augustine was that he was raised a pagan and eventually was heavily involved with Manichaeism. Manichaeism was a Persian religion that emphasized the duality of creation: good and evil, light and dark, etc. The founder of the religion was deeply influenced by Zorastrianism and it's dualism and believed himself to be a prophet from God like Zoroaster before him.

When Augustine later converted to Christianity and became one of the most influential theological authors in Christiantiy, he took much of his Manichaeism (and subsequently Zoroastrianism) with him. This is why he emphasized the duality of good and evil, and why Christianity has emphasized it so much since then.

This duality is both religiously derived and extremely deeply rooted in human culture. The irony which I spoke of above is your insistence in maintaining this dualistic perspective, despite your alleged atheism. You go so far as to attack me for rejecting a binary perspective.

This is why I quoted Marx earlier. It gets to the heart of your own moral shortcomings. I'll quote it again to remind you:

I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people.

Despite all your evangelicalism, you remain at your core a Neo-Manichean -- a Social Zoroastrian. You ignore the philosophical implications of your arguments for the sake of your own irreligious purity. You are codifying atheism with one hand, while justifying it with theistic morality with the other.

It really is a great irony.

Opposite is not the word I would have used, but is true that religion is antithetical to science. Science is a system that rests upon three basic postulates:

1. The external world that we observe actually exists.
2. The external world has laws that govern its behaviour and which are universal.
3. It is within the collective capability of humanity to fully comprehend the rules of the external world. Nothing has the a priori quality of being unknowable.

Religion clearly violates these postulates. Religion, which involves unobservable, and hence unknowable, entities clearly violates postulate 3, for instance.

Chimx, your tangent about 'dualism' is simply a combination of obstruction and deliberate misinterpretation.

Religion clearly violates these postulates.

Aside from certain fundamentalists, I would disagree. Religion isn't interested in "knowing". It acknowledges its own immaterialism. This is why religion emphasizes faith. They fulfill entirely different purposes. To place them at opposite sides of a single spectrum is to misunderstand either one or the other. (Something that fundamentalists often do).

If you are interested in theological books regarding the issue I can make some suggestions.

Chimx, your tangent about 'dualism' is simply a combination of obstruction and deliberate misinterpretation.

I think it emphasizes the point of Marx, that theism or atheism are irrelavant when one ignores the philosophical underpinning of society.

Aside from certain fundamentalists, I would disagree. Religion isn't interested in "knowing". It acknowledges its own immaterialism. This is why religion emphasizes faith.

In which case it does violate them. Faith, or belief, that something is true still applies when seeing if something is consistent with those postulates or not. Faith is merely an irrational "knowing". Faith in the immaterial violates postulates 1 and 2.

They fulfill entirely different purposes. To place them at opposite sides of a single spectrum is to misunderstand either one or the other. (Something that fundamentalists often do).

...

I think it emphasizes the point of Marx, that theism or atheism are irrelavant when one ignores the philosophical underpinning of society.

What I meant was that you took what Sentinel probably meant to mean antithetical but interpreted it, despite context, in such a way as to portray the idea that he had a spectrum on which science and religion were on opposite ends and then proceeded to go off on a long tangent.

If you are interested in theological books regarding the issue I can make some suggestions.

I am afraid I spend too much time lurking on RevLeft and doing various other things to devote sufficient time to it, especially since Capital is still on my reading list. Sorry.

What I meant was that you took what Sentinel probably meant to mean antithetical but interpreted it, despite context, in such a way as to portray the idea that he had a spectrum on which science and religion were on opposite ends and then proceeded to go off on a long tangent.

It goes beyond that. It was his idea that there existed a duality between anthropocentricim and biocentricism or Progression vs. non-progression, following the same binary of Good and Evil. It's indicative of mind fettered by thousands of years of religious morality and culture.

In which case it does violate them. Faith, or belief, that something is true still applies when seeing if something is consistent with those postulates or not. Faith is merely an irrational "knowing". Faith in the immaterial violates postulates 1 and 2.

Science is interested in the material world, as you said. It doesn't deal with the immaterial, obviously. I don't see an inherent contradiction between a faith in in the immaterial and the study of the material. They are entirely different realms. Problems only arise when one tries to apply the faith to the material world and science to the immaterial.

Or to paraphrase some theologians, "science explains the reason for how the world operates, religion tries to explore the 'meaning'."

Science is interested in the material world, as you said. It doesn't deal with the immaterial, obviously. I don't see an inherent contradiction between a faith in in the immaterial and the study of the material. They are entirely different realms. Problems only arise when one tries to apply the faith to the material world and science to the immaterial.

Or to paraphrase some theologians, "science explains the reason for how the world operates, religion tries to explore the 'meaning'."

In reality, the dichotomy of the material and immaterial world is upheld only by a handful of theologians. To most religious believers, things like miracles etc. are held to be in the same "magisterium" as material things.

If that is true then that is probably because of most people's poor understanding of theology. But if it is religious leaders that uphold the dichotomy and religious followers that ignore it, than I don't see why it is necessary to fault the religious institutions themselves (whose theologians "get it").

I also think it is wise to remember that in the United States (and probably elsewhere), fundamentalism is not as strong a force as many give credit. It is a more vocal group than any other religious sects and denominations, but it is still a significant minority compared with most religions that uphold a more moderate stance.

If that is true then that is probably because of most people's poor understanding of theology. But if it is religious leaders that uphold the dichotomy and religious followers that ignore it, than I don't see why it is necessary to fault the religious institutions themselves (whose theologians "get it").

Except that religious leaders that I know of don't. I if I remember correctly, "miracles" are upheld by the Catholic Church, as well as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, something that pretty much all Christians uphold.

Tell me, how much does a soul weigh? What are the dimensions of a god? In all seriousness, to talk of immaterial things is to talk of nothings.

Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA) is simply an intellectual convenience, and nothing at all to do with religious belief as it operates in the real world.

I also think it is wise to remember that in the United States (and probably elsewhere), fundamentalism is not as strong a force as many give credit. It is a more vocal group than any other religious sects and denominations, but it is still a significant minority compared with most religions that uphold a more moderate stance.

Among industrialised nations, the USA is a definate odd one out. But not all nations are industrialised - superstition of the most primitive kind is shockingly common elsewhere in the world. Witness children in africa being chased out villages for being "witches" for example. Evangelical churches in Europe are also claiming increased attendance.

Among industrialised nations, the USA is a definate odd one out. But not all nations are industrialised - superstition of the most primitive kind is shockingly common elsewhere in the world. Witness children in africa being chased out villages for being "witches" for example. Evangelical churches in Europe are also claiming increased attendance.

And those are entirely negative things that should be condemned. But unless you want your head to role with Robespierre's, I suggest you tread carefully and be aware of the reasons behind religious superstitions.

After 7 days, the vote stands at 14-7. Chimx is removed.

Closed.