Can religion exist without class hierarchy?

[ibn Bruce]

You could even push a complete skeptical position, such as Descartes, and propose that you could never have certainty about anything other than "doubt", but in this case, you are implying an objective reality which you can doubt....and the position collapses into itself.

No, it doesn't. One can deny the existance of an objective reality without by doing so confirming its existance. I personally believe there is an objective reality, but I do not base my position upon implied access to it. An empiricist approach to metaphysical questions does just that.

Really man, comparing atheistic skepticism to metaphysical skepticism is hardly worthwhile. Atheism is by default not a position...rather, it is a counterpoint to the empty position of theism. A true atheist would never say "God does not exist", since that would mean that the term god meant anything at all. A true atheist would answer, when asked the question "do you believe in god" with "I don't understand the question".

It is funny then that that is not listed as a response in the 'do you believe' thread. One cannot say that the term God 'means nothing at all', as it obviously does, though what exactly it means to each individual differs. For some the word represents a delusion, to some a Man, and to some something that 'having no comprehension of, is comprehension'. An Atheist may to themselves place no heed in the term or what it means, but when they are in an oppositional position, attempting to prove or assert things, it becomes neccesary to engage.

A recent trend in Atheists is to couch themselves as the upholders of 'science', that to believe in God is not scientifically valid. This implies that such a thing was a scientific question. It also shows a profound ignorance of the history of even Western philosophical thought. The question is in itself beyond our perception (unless we are talking about the more anthropomorphic religions) and thus can only be answered through reason rather than empiricism.

But do you think the level of servitude toward an invisible being that you claim to have reached can be reached by everyone of their own accord?

A rejection of all attribution to that other in God will result in a state of Islam, Sheikh or no Sheikh.

So you are bringing up a strawman (that of hierarchy among sheiks) and at the same time justifying hierarchy. The hierarchy talked of here is believers < sheiks.

This hierarchy is that of patients < doctors, students < teachers, which I doubt greatly that anyone here plans to erase. Hierarchy, as the question seems to be implying, has connotations of some kind of coercive power.

In some religions, the believer can speak or confess to God only through a priest. In Islam, this is not needed. The purpose of Sheikhs is only to preserve and transmit the law, and this law comes in various forms. Sheikh means 'teacher', not priest. A Sheikh teaches Arabic, teaches jurisprudence, they do not teach Iman (a state of devotion), one can only find Iman and Islam through their own personal devotion and dedication. A Sheikh's position is contingent on 'ijma' (consensus) and without it their rulings mean nothing and no one would follow them.



If you got cut, would you go to a medical textbook and self teach? Or rather would you go to a doctor, someone who knew that medical textbook? You would go to a doctor.

Similarly, if you wanted to, you could read that textbook and maybe learn medicine. Then you would be a doctor. That is how a Sheikh is, not 'appointed', but learned. If that constitutes hierarchy, then fine, Islam needs such things.

[Jazzratt]

I am saying that there are people native to Africa, and monkeys native to Africa, so if we are evolved from them, why are there still NATIVE AFRICAN MONKEYS in Africa, and I'll thank you to keep me in context from now on.

-PC

Your post rests on the false assumption we evolved from monkeys and that anyone is positing that, as woland pointed out:

By the way, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans have the same hominid ancestors.

The answer to your asinine question should be obvious.

[PCommie]

If you got cut, would you go to a medical textbook and self teach? Or rather would you go to a doctor, someone who knew that medical textbook? You would go to a doctor.

Heh, no, I'd get the textbook, buddy. I stay away from borugeoise medicine as much as possible.

Jazzrat, whatever. Let me show you a rationale:

FOR EVOLUTION:

Assuming there is no God, and skipping the problems of universe creation, we will skip directly the creation of planet Earth:

1) Space dust is pulled into an orbit around this stupid nuclear ball. It takes a long time to compress into a planet. The planet is at the PERFECT distance from the sun to sustain human-type life.

2) An atmosphere forms. By sheer coincidence, it is perfectly breathable. But that's the least argument here, since we may well have adapted to a different atmosphere.

3) Since the Earth went from space dust to a lava ball to a piece of rock, a comet would have to crash on the planet. This comet is carrying prokaryotic microbes from heaven-knows-where in the galaxy.

4) Humans are the only beings who are "sentient" on Earth. Consequently, these prokaryotes must have had some special qualities. Damn special. We are now suggesting "cosmic super-germs." Damn.

5) These things, over many, many eons, miraculously develop into beings with all kinds of advanced bodies and methods of internal homeostasis, the whole gene expression thing. DNA changes, eukaryotes develop, everything changes.

Now, the Christian theory:

1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.

I know someone will find a way to argue with me, but I find the Christian concept MUCH more plausible, and dropping your bias, looking at these two theoires as if you had never heard of God or anything before, you will know if your hearts that what I'm saying is true.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Kappie]

FOR EVOLUTION:

Assuming there is no God, and skipping the problems of universe creation, we will skip directly the creation of planet Earth:

1) Space dust is pulled into an orbit around this stupid nuclear ball. It takes a long time to compress into a planet. The planet is at the PERFECT distance from the sun to sustain human-type life.

And of course, a practically infinite number of other planets, 8 of them in our own solar system (Pluto is a planet, God dammit), form as well, which are not the "PERFECT" distance from the sun to contain human-type life. Does it really seem so strange that one of these infinite number of planets happens to be able to bear life as we know it?

2) An atmosphere forms. By sheer coincidence, it is perfectly breathable. But that's the least argument here, since we may well have adapted to a different atmosphere.

And, in fact, life exists without air, look at all the life under water. In fact, life is so versatile that scientists have discovered life which lives in environments (such as miles down in the ocean) where it was previously assumed that it would be impossible for life to exist. Go figure.

3) Since the Earth went from space dust to a lava ball to a piece of rock, a comet would have to crash on the planet. This comet is carrying prokaryotic microbes from heaven-knows-where in the galaxy.

Why, exactly, would the prokaryotic microbes have had to come from a comet exactly? Most scientists do not hold to such a theory, and believe that they developed right here on Earth, and potential ways they may have initially formed have been studied successfully through experimentation, although certainly there is still much to discover on how prokaryotes and life in general first originated.

4) Humans are the only beings who are "sentient" on Earth. Consequently, these prokaryotes must have had some special qualities. Damn special. We are now suggesting "cosmic super-germs." Damn.

And Duck-billed platypuses are the only mammals that lay eggs. Doesn't make them "cosmic super-germs." By the way, do you understand the meaning of the word "cosmic"?

5) These things, over many, many eons, miraculously develop into beings with all kinds of advanced bodies and methods of internal homeostasis, the whole gene expression thing. DNA changes, eukaryotes develop, everything changes.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Now, the Christian theory:

1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.

Where, exactly, did this cosmic "some kind of eternal" omnipotent superbeing come from? Why trade a mystical magic man in the sky for whom no evidence exists for an explanation which, as amazing and incredible as it is, is based upon observable and verifiable scientific laws?

I know someone will find a way to argue with me, but I find the Christian concept MUCH more plausible, and dropping your bias, looking at these two theories as if you had never heard of God or anything before, you will know if your hearts that what I'm saying is true.

No, most people wouldn't. For the most part, people tend to side with a story which bears closest resemblance to their conception of reality. A person who had never heard of God before, who knew nothing of spiritualism or mysticism or the supernatural or any of that, would typically tend towards naturalistic explanations. For example, if I happened to bump into you on the street and you asked me how I got there, you would believe the idea that I had driven or walked there more plausible than the idea that "some sort of eternal" omnipotent superbeing had teleported me to that exact spot at that exact time, because people moving about by walking or driving does not violate any of your sense of understanding of how the world operates.

[Decolonize The Left]

There is also no proof that anything beyond your perception exists, do you then deny that I do?

No, there's plenty of proof that things beyond our perception exist - namely, the perceptions of others. That is how the scientific method functions in it's third phase: test repeatedly through observation in such a manner that any independent observer can do the same.

It is ironic that many Atheists claim reason as a driving force, while simultaneously not taking reason to its logical absolute. If one is going to claim a sceptical position, one cannot use Empiricism to prove anything, as one must consistantly apply such scepticism, including to ones own reality. With the knowledge that all perception is subjective, no individual is capable of arguing anything based upon what they individually observe.

Perhaps you are confused about the meaning of skepticism?

What you speak of here is called "Cartesian skepticism," and it is the belief that one can doubt anything (including one's perceptions) except 'to be.' Cartesian skepticism has long since been debunked as a fairly pointless exercise, for in order to doubt one must already be 'a self,' and in order to be a self one must be a person - hence one must have a material existence. If one has a material existence, one necessarily exists within something else, namely, the universe.

Basically, Cartesian skepticism falls into it's own pit of reductive absurdity for it uses the senses, and the brain, to claim that these may not exist. It's quite foolish really.

Following every revelation is entropy, it makes sense. A Messenger comes, monotheism gets dilluted to polytheism, the law is abandoned and eventually the religions now based on confused assumptions collapse.

You have already posited the existence of a supreme being, hence this claim falls to my earlier critique.

That was not really what I was trying to get across, merely that one should begin to look at belief systems according to what they give to their followers.

But this is nonsensical. Ex: Nazism gave great support to its followers - made them feel very special. Does this mean it's great?

No Proof of objective reality, yet believe that one can 'prove' things using said objective reality, sounds insane to me.

"Proof" exists within objective reality for it is the confirmation of something existing - given that "objective reality" is existence, one cannot "prove" anything outside of objective reality.

Considering the Islamic understanding of God, all existance is 'proof'. God is a paradigm, like quarks in science, without empirical proof but taken to exist because it explains many things. Science is full of paradigms like that.

What, exactly, does "god explain?" And how is this explanation considered to be reasonable in any sense?

Cause and effect is the basis of all things in this Universe, but it is logical that this cycle of cause and effect cannot exist eternally, therefore there must be something that is not 'caused' but is also a cause. That is the thing we call God.

The 'eternal cause' argument has also long-since been debunked as a pathetic attempt to shove the existence of god into that which hasn't been explained scientifically.

Here's why it's a bunch of nonsense:
1) The relationship of cause and effect may not be absolute.
2) The relationship of cause and effect cannot be simplified into 'one cause = one effect.'
3) There is no reason to believe there was 'an initial cause.'

As for 3, perhaps you have heard of the theory of the universe expanding (as it is doing now) until the total gravity of all objects in the universe surpasses a boundary causing the universe to contract back upon itself into a 'reverse big bang?' Theoretically, this universe could then re-expand in another big bang thereby creating a new universe.

Which is more plausible? A simple theory based upon physics, or a theory which posits without justification the existence of a supreme being making the universe expand?

I wish I did, magic monkeys and icecream volcanoes rock! However they are not an explanation for a question not answered by science.

But they are equally as valid as the explanation of god. Neither make rational sense and neither have justification.

- August

[ibn Bruce]

No, there's plenty of proof that things beyond our perception exist - namely, the perceptions of others. That is how the scientific method functions in it's third phase: test repeatedly through observation in such a manner that any independent observer can do the same.

How is it that the perceptions of others, which is something you PERCIEVE is proof of your own perception?

Perhaps you are confused about the meaning of skepticism?

What you speak of here is called "Cartesian skepticism," and it is the belief that one can doubt anything (including one's perceptions) except 'to be.' Cartesian skepticism has long since been debunked as a fairly pointless exercise, for in order to doubt one must already be 'a self,' and in order to be a self one must be a person - hence one must have a material existence. If one has a material existence, one necessarily exists within something else, namely, the universe.

Basically, Cartesian skepticism falls into it's own pit of reductive absurdity for it uses the senses, and the brain, to claim that these may not exist. It's quite foolish really.

Its funny, most of the people I know, that have studied philosophy have come to the conclusion that Descartes conclusion was innevitable, and not really disprovable. However they make assumptions, paradigms, about existance in order to create other hypotheses about such things.

But this is nonsensical. Ex: Nazism gave great support to its followers - made them feel very special. Does this mean it's great?

Having had family who grew up on both sides of the Third Reich (oppressed and oppressors), neither got much out of it. I don't even think Hitler was happy, and he definately wasn't a good person to the people around him!

"Proof" exists within objective reality for it is the confirmation of something existing - given that "objective reality" is existence, one cannot "prove" anything outside of objective reality.

Objective reality is not your existance, or my existance, it is taken to be something that somehow exists outside of both. A reality with which we interact and see different sides of. Thus for one to make a claim about 'objective reality' based upon their own perception, is insane, because they only see their side.

It is like the 5 blind men and the elephant, one 'sees' a snake, another a tree and so on and so forth.

What, exactly, does "god explain?" And how is this explanation considered to be reasonable in any sense?

God explains the original source of existance. If cause and effect defines this universe, and it is also illogical to say that everything always existed, then there logically must be something which 'caused' the beginning... yet that thing must similarly not be bound by the laws of 'cause and effect' in order to not be subject to the same issues.

As for 3, perhaps you have heard of the theory of the universe expanding (as it is doing now) until the total gravity of all objects in the universe surpasses a boundary causing the universe to contract back upon itself into a 'reverse big bang?' Theoretically, this universe could then re-expand in another big bang thereby creating a new universe.

Indeed, which is a theory, as we do not know whether the force of this expansion is absolute (and therefore continuing) or if it is not, in which case the universe will collapse into the 'Big Crunch'. These things are not proven, and even if they were they do not adequately explain the source issue.

You say 'may not be absolute', assert that cause and effect cannot be simplified to one cause and one effect (which I do not do) and finally say that 'there is no reason to believe that there was an initial cause'. These are not resounding arguments, as even if the expand collapse process, string theory or multiverse are true (I am very partial to multiverse theory myself) there still needs to be a starting point for it all. Energy does not materialise of its own accord EVER.

It is probable that the same amount of energy is in this universe, the same amount of matter and anti-matter, as there was at the Big Bang. If this is not true, and energy is fed into this universe through other universes etc. then there still needs to be an originating point. You have not debunked this. And it has not been debunked, despite your assertion.

In terms of plausability, I have no problem as a Muslim with the Big Bang, or even (I was talking to my Sheikh about this the other night) theories of the Multiverse (one interpretation of a verse in the Qu'ran is 'Lord of the Universes', plural). I take them as scientifically good explanations, however I do not take them as metaphysical ones.

[Jazzratt]

1) Space dust is pulled into an orbit around this stupid nuclear ball. It takes a long time to compress into a planet. The planet is at the PERFECT distance from the sun to sustain human-type life.

Yes, and?

2) An atmosphere forms. By sheer coincidence, it is perfectly breathable. But that's the least argument here, since we may well have adapted to a different atmosphere.

Yes, and?

3) Since the Earth went from space dust to a lava ball to a piece of rock, a comet would have to crash on the planet. This comet is carrying prokaryotic microbes from heaven-knows-where in the galaxy.

LOLWUT? Who makes this claim?

4) Humans are the only beings who are "sentient" on Earth. Consequently, these prokaryotes must have had some special qualities. Damn special. We are now suggesting "cosmic super-germs." Damn.

No, you're the one positing cosmic super germs. Are you high? You shouldn't be trying to argue your (insane) point while high.

5) These things, over many, many eons, miraculously develop into beings with all kinds of advanced bodies and methods of internal homeostasis, the whole gene expression thing. DNA changes, eukaryotes develop, everything changes.

You paid some sort of attention in biology lessons. Your "magic germs from space" theory is a fairly unique one though. (There is a hypothesis that we were hit by a chunk of mars containing martian proto-life, perhaps that's what your trying to get at?)

Now, the Christian theory:

Goddidit, I bet that's the theory. It's the same one you lot used to describe why we stay on the ground, why we get diseases and so on.

1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.

I was right. Problems? Where did this eternal being come from, why did it make everything, where is it now, why did it put every possible effort into making it look like it didn't make everything, why do things evolve?

I know someone will find a way to argue with me, but I find the Christian concept MUCH more plausible, and dropping your bias, looking at these two theoires as if you had never heard of God or anything before, you will know if your hearts that what I'm saying is true.

In my heart I know that you must have eaten a whole mess of paint chips as a kid. Goddamn.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

OF COURSE IT WILL



I like big letters.But any way it will just not the harmful parts of them.

[JFMLenin]

A belief in God, higher power, or whatever will still exist because belief can still exist without what I would call organized dogmatic fascism (one of my favorite terms, as I am sure you can tell). There are plenty of people who would say they believe without being religious, I would be one of them. I call myself a Muslim, because I think they get the core tenets of belief down better than most other religions, but I'm more of a non-doctrinaire believer in God. But, regardless, belief will still exist even without dogma or doctrine or a clergy class, it will be better than what it is now, that's for sure.

[Decolonize The Left]

First, my apologies for neglecting your response.

How is it that the perceptions of others, which is something you PERCIEVE is proof of your own perception?

It isn't - it is the collective perceptions, available to any independent observer, which is proof.

Its funny, most of the people I know, that have studied philosophy have come to the conclusion that Descartes conclusion was innevitable, and not really disprovable. However they make assumptions, paradigms, about existance in order to create other hypotheses about such things.

Descartes' conclusion was absurd. It's totally pointless and fruitless.

Having had family who grew up on both sides of the Third Reich (oppressed and oppressors), neither got much out of it. I don't even think Hitler was happy, and he definately wasn't a good person to the people around him!

Your personal stories are irrelevant to your original claim:

That was not really what I was trying to get across, merely that one should begin to look at belief systems according to what they give to their followers.

Such a claim is terribly flawed as "what they give to their followers" is far too relative to be of any use to this discussion.

Objective reality is not your existance, or my existance, it is taken to be something that somehow exists outside of both. A reality with which we interact and see different sides of. Thus for one to make a claim about 'objective reality' based upon their own perception, is insane, because they only see their side.

It is like the 5 blind men and the elephant, one 'sees' a snake, another a tree and so on and so forth.

What each of them "sees" is their perception, a piece of what we call "reality." We deduce that there is an elephant, because there are non-blind people observing the blind people touching the elephant...

God explains the original source of existance. If cause and effect defines this universe, and it is also illogical to say that everything always existed, then there logically must be something which 'caused' the beginning... yet that thing must similarly not be bound by the laws of 'cause and effect' in order to not be subject to the same issues.

You have assumed:
a) Cause and effect is a finite, determinable, relationship.
b) Cause and effect is a linear, singular, sequence of events.
c) The supposed sequence of cause and effect actually started somewhere/time.

None of these assumptions is completely justified and hence your claim that god started it all is unjustified as well. It's also ridiculous - just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean god did it.

You sound like the pagans who thought the stars were gods. They aren't. They're balls of hydrogen. But they didn't know that... so is the 'original cause' god? You don't know, but you assume it is because it gives you comfort.

Indeed, which is a theory, as we do not know whether the force of this expansion is absolute (and therefore continuing) or if it is not, in which case the universe will collapse into the 'Big Crunch'. These things are not proven, and even if they were they do not adequately explain the source issue.

They might not explain the source issue entirely, but they allow us far more reason to determine the source rather than absolute blind unjustified belief in a deity.

You say 'may not be absolute', assert that cause and effect cannot be simplified to one cause and one effect (which I do not do) and finally say that 'there is no reason to believe that there was an initial cause'. These are not resounding arguments, as even if the expand collapse process, string theory or multiverse are true (I am very partial to multiverse theory myself) there still needs to be a starting point for it all. Energy does not materialise of its own accord EVER.

No. But it can be recycled.

It is probable that the same amount of energy is in this universe, the same amount of matter and anti-matter, as there was at the Big Bang. If this is not true, and energy is fed into this universe through other universes etc. then there still needs to be an originating point. You have not debunked this. And it has not been debunked, despite your assertion.

All this is irrelevant to the possibility of there not being an 'original cause.'

In terms of plausability, I have no problem as a Muslim with the Big Bang, or even (I was talking to my Sheikh about this the other night) theories of the Multiverse (one interpretation of a verse in the Qu'ran is 'Lord of the Universes', plural). I take them as scientifically good explanations, however I do not take them as metaphysical ones.

Fine. But you are positing without justification, and unnecessarily the existence of god. You seem to be well-educated, and hence you should understand that unnecessary additions to any theory only weaken the theory. Positing god does nothing but weaken any theory for it is entirely absurd.

- August

[Patchd]

From ancient times, we have seen that religions have constantly justified class hierarchy in the form of

• Ruling clergy
• Feudal lords
• Capitalist class
• Dictators
• Etc

My question is: can religion exist without a class hierarchy or, on the other hand, does religion exist solely to justify class hierarchy?

If we remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, will religion still exist?

Also, at the same time, some religions/religious denominations have condemned them. Remember that religions aren't a homogeneous group, there are many different denominations in all main religions, some are extremely Conservative, others are largely Liberal, or even Communalist.

The same goes for politics. Let's take Communism for example, some 'Communists' have condoned and upheld privilege, dictatorships, oppression and exploitation, while other 'Communists' have condemned these things.

Organised religion, I believe, is mutually exclusive to post-revolutionary, classless society, mainly because Organised religion is based on hierarchy, privilege, and individual authority. If we are to abolish all forms of hierarchy, then religion should not be exempt. Can religion coexist in a classless society? Yes, if it isn't in the form of authoritative churches and sects, as long as priests and imams, and other figures of religious representation are reclaimed in their traditional sense, of just a person within a community, mandated by those in the community, to pretty much chair prayer sessions, meetings or give religious advice, rather than spiritual or material authority.

Religious freedom to the point where it does not contradict a liberated society.

Now, the Christian theory:

1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.

As Jazzratt has already mentioned, where did this being come from? How was it so meticulously designed? Surely if everything must come from somewhere, where then did this magical God of yours come from? Your logic simply does not follow.

In addition, may I point you to another problem with Christianity. The Bible dictates that God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing. If that is the case, why then are some parts of the world deprived of food and water? Why then do volcanoes erupt destroying lands and killing people, and tidal waves flooding large areas of the world burying people in the process? This all-loving God of yours must surely want to end this suffering of ours, and seeing as, even as you admitted it, he is all-powerful, why then does he not stop it?

This is a blatant contradiction in the nature of your God, either, he is a right bastard and is responsible for all the suffering in the world, or is powerful enough to be able to stop it but simply does not want to, in which case, even if he did exist, he does not warrant our worship of him, or he is not all-powerful, in which case, the claim that he can simply make himself come into existence, or that he can do almost anything (including the creation of the universe) goes completely out the window because if he is not powerful enough to stop famine, stop diseases and so forth, then how can he be powerful enough to create or even destroy worlds?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Religious freedom to the point where it does not contradict a liberated society.

I agree to an extent, but I hold that religion is not a productive force and to be blunt, i dont think it can be. Therefore I dont think it's sufficient to just state that religious belief is ok, as long as it isn't organised..

I think religion in and of itself is something we should be fighting against, I don't need to plaster this wall with examples of homophobia, misogyny etc to proove this point

Religion isn't just incompatible with communism when it becomes organised. To suggest this is to allege that when religion becomes something other than an individual quest for salvation it becomes distorted; that religion is fine - but evolves into something worrisome when a number religious people congregate under a banner.

I think is misguided, i think religion, organised, innate, orthodox, liberal or otherwise is a problem for us. A very simple look at some of the very basic teachings of some of the largest religions shows religion quite clearly to be a conservative force. Seeing as we do not favour the staus quo (radical I know ).. then religion is a problem for us, for example:

- Monotheism especially teaches that the world is created by God an omnipotent and benevolent being, change therefore is blasphemy as it goes against the creations of the lord.
- Even if the above isn't true of all religions, the majority of religions hold praise for the afterlife, so why bother changing existing society when you can seek salvation in heaven? when you're reborn? When [insert prophet/saint here] returns...?

There are a number of other ways, but you get the point.

That isn't to say I support the state or any other governing body regulating the private realm in such matters. The example of Soviet Russia dissuades me on that front, where state sponsored atheist campaigns spilt the blood of thousands of people and mobilised a great number of people against the Communist cause. But this doesn't mean promotion of atheism is counter-productive, rather that inconsistent anti-theism is hypocritical. Soviet expansionist ambitions for the Middle East (Iran and Afghanistan namely) for example lead them to maintain great relations with the Islamic denominations within the Union, similarly after years of anti-Semitism the Jewish community within Russia enjoyed good relations with the Bolshevik Party (for some time anyhows..), simultaneously the Russian State was funding groups such as the League of the Godless (later League of the Militant Godless), were pillaging the Russian Orthodox Church, burning their buildings, looting their gold reserves and show-trialling their church heirarchs.

The example of Spain too shows that the looting of the churches is a completely necessary tactic for us, when all funding from elsewhere is cut off and counter-revolutionary forces muster. At this point religious people will have an innate battle, so they side with their religion, their believe in God and their church, or do they battle for human freedom and liberation?

Religion and communism isn't compatible tere will always be a point where people begin to question which cause they believe in more. Furthermore to assume only organised religion is problematic to our values and beliefs is something i'd question..

[Revy]

I think that more "alternative" forms of spirituality may be more popular, less focused on "worship" and more focused on the idea that one can "commune" with "forces" or a non-sentient "Universal Spirit". Many of these people could also see themselves as atheists since their belief system would not be compatible with the traditional definition of theism.

I think as time goes on, people will eventually grow weary of the "Sky Daddy" belief system, which is obviously not working out well for anyone, and realize that if something exists, it's not here to help us, and it doesn't even care about us one way or the other.

[x359594]

...If we remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, will religion still exist?

Since religion partakes of the irrational (or non-rational) I think we must assume that it will continue to exist in some form or other even in a classless society. We can't expect the irrational to disappear because social arrangements have changed.

[Patchd]

I agree to an extent, but I hold that religion is not a productive force and to be blunt, i dont think it can be. Therefore I dont think it's sufficient to just state that religious belief is ok, as long as it isn't organised..

I think religion in and of itself is something we should be fighting against, I don't need to plaster this wall with examples of homophobia, misogyny etc to proove this point

I agree, but when it isn't organised in a dangerous manner, then it should not be fought against with force, but rather, logic. I would not like to live in a society where I am not allowed to 'think' a certain way, one reason why I'd rather live in Britain than North Korea for example.

Again, if certain religions, denominations or practices contradicts liberated society, as I stated in my last post, then it should be abolished. Homophobia, sexism, ageism, racism and so forth, contradict a liberated society. We can't stop people holding those views, but what we can stop is their right to represent those views publicly. Many people will use the argument against religion that religion stems from a common lowest denominator belief, and I agree with that sentiment. However, what a lot of people take to be the lowest common denominator of religion, let's take Christianity for example, is the bible, the whole bible and nothing but the bible!

Now, that's unfair, simply because religion has advanced to the stage where not everything in the bible is taken literally, or even agreed with by some Christians. A Christian friend of mine for example, does not believe in the omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence of God, yet, he is still a Christian because of his belief in Jesus being the embodiment of God in human form, as well as complying with a number of Jesus' teachings, in fact he's an Anarcho-Syndicalist because of his religious beliefs. Religion is no longer a single lined doctrine, where every word has to be taken literally, just as Marxism doesn't rely on Marxists taking every single word of Marx literally. I still think religious belief is irrational, but there are still too many misconceptions about it, especially within the revolutionary left.

- Monotheism especially teaches that the world is created by God an omnipotent and benevolent being, change therefore is blasphemy as it goes against the creations of the lord.
- Even if the above isn't true of all religions, the majority of religions hold praise for the afterlife, so why bother changing existing society when you can seek salvation in heaven? when you're reborn? When [insert prophet/saint here] returns...?

Yes, but we're talking about a society free from class hierarchy here.

In addition:

- Your first premise is wrong, change isn't seen as blasphemous for many monotheists, including many Conservative monotheists. For many monotheists, change is simply seen as another process in God's plans. So, for many, change isn't shunned, but welcomed, or accepted.

- On your second point, despite many people holding religious views and beliefs in an afterlife of some sort, it does not abolish their want for a decent material life. Obviously there are some nutjobs out there who go out of their way to make themselves suffer by becoming hermits, or monks (or vegans ), but the majority of people want to be able to have food on the table, have a roof over their head, not have long working hours. If your second point was true, I would then like to see you explain why charities exist.

The example of Spain too shows that the looting of the churches is a completely necessary tactic for us, when all funding from elsewhere is cut off and counter-revolutionary forces muster. At this point religious people will have an innate battle, so they side with their religion, their believe in God and their church, or do they battle for human freedom and liberation?

Oh fuck the church. That Christian Anarcho-Syndicalist mate of mine even condoned it, for the same reasons as you suggested, as well as for his dislike/distrust for Organised religion. One of his arguments too was, if the militias were fighting for an egalitarian, communalist society, then the Church was obliged to give up their resources for the benefit of human kind. That is the primary purpose of the church, to serve God, and it was his (religious) belief that the way to serve God was to serve "his Children": us, humanity. So not all religious beliefs are reactionary.

[Comrade Anarchist]

the whole idea of most religions is that there is something above us that is greater than us so it creates a hierarchie which undermines a classless society.

[Patchd]

the whole idea of most religions is that there is something above us that is greater than us so it creates a hierarchie which undermines a classless society.

Yes, but if an individual chooses to remain in that mindset, who are you to force them to lose it? Yes, theism enforces the idea of hierarchy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that expression of hierarchy will be transferred to reality. Like I've mentioned before, some Christians, especially the liberal, socialist or anarchist ones, tend to see God as the one occupying the top spot on the hierarchy pyramid, yet, every other human being is equal before him.