A question for RedStar2000

[Jersey Devil]

What is your opinion regarding the White Rose Society?

[redstar2000]

I would presume that you are referring to the small group (5 people) of Christian pacifists who organized the distribution of anti-Nazi propaganda in 1942-44 in southern Germany.

I think they were simultaneously very brave and very foolish; they were captured (and executed) because of a blunder in the course of their last leaflet distribution.

Since you started this thread in this particular sub-forum, your intent would seem to me to use the White Rose Society as an argument against my thesis of the reactionary social role of religion.

That's a pretty obscure example; most people who want to dispute my hypothesis bring up Martin Luther King, Jr. or, if they've read a little American history, John Brown.

The small and almost trivial nature of these objections only confirms my point. The Catholic hierarchy in the Third Reich enthusiastically supported the government...including Sunday prayers for Hitler and German victory.

The vast majority of black preachers did not support King or his small group of co-religionists.

And the overwhelming majority of clergymen in all parts of anti-bellum America either supported slavery or, at least, had no problem with it.

The most interesting example of domestic anti-Nazi resistance during World War II were the Edelweißpiraten and similar groups. They were young working class kids who dodged both the Hitler Youth and even the military draft. They freely used violence -- beating up members of the Hitler Youth and stealing the "sacred daggers" of their leaders. They also assisted deserters from the German army. In the aftermath of the bombing of a German city, they actually assassinated a local Gestapo chief.

They were not religious, of course.

[t_wolves_fan]

Your power of self delusion is impressive.

So, while the power structures of religion did not exactly live up to their responsibilities in the past lends credence to your "thesis", the actions of, shall we say grassroots religious types (who for instance started the abolitionist movement) somehow also prove your point.

Frankly, I think it is the reverse: If the grassroots religious are defying the religious power structure to do what is right by humanity, then it absolutely refutes your moronic proposition that religion = reactionary.

You're more entertaining than "Sex in the City", I don't know why my wife wastes time with that crap.

[Jersey Devil]

It seems that twf has more of an understanding of what I am trying to say. You do not make the claim that organized religion is inherently "evil", which I could understand, but you make the claim that any belief in a higher being, be it an individual's choice or what he was indoctrinated to believe, is evil.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think you're missing RedStar's point.

Now, suppose the great majority of people who define themselves as conservatives support traditional morality, capitalism, strong military, etc. - but there's this one guy in the Republican party, a dues-payer, and self-declared conservative . . . who supports communism and world revolution (hell, it sound slike the sort of stunt I'd pull ). Would you still think base yr understanding of "Republican" on the official party-platform? Would you still associate conservatism with defense of traditional institutions? Unless you're really fucking confused, I imagine so.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)You're more entertaining than "Sex in the City", I don't know why my wife wastes time with that crap.[/b]

Gee, how can I put this? Um, have you tried Viagra?

To more serious matters...

Jersey Devil

...you make the claim that any belief in a higher being, be it an individual's choice or what he was indoctrinated to believe, is evil.

That's normally how it works out...though one can certainly dig up marginal exceptions.

Don't forget the message at the core of every religion: obedience to authority. That's why the churches and their congregations almost always show up on the side of the "bad guys".

You will sometimes run across the formula "Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God" -- but you won't find it in the "Bible" or any other "holy book". It's a fake slogan -- articulated by a small minority who were indoctrinated with superstition as children and cannot abandon the "need" for "cosmic justification" for rebellion against earthly tyranny.

It's childishness, of course. A rational adult does not need "celestial authorization" to rebel against real tyrants.

Indeed, I think the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the contention that religious belief of any kind leads more or less directly to support of existing tyrannies or the establishment of new ones.

The exceptions are trivial.

[DoomedOne]

I'll give you organized religion, or any attempt to organize a religion, leads to a lot of bad things. But, religious people themselves are only pressured to act that way. To religious itself means nothing more than to give yourself a label. People believe in whatever part of their religion they want to. There is, in fact, usually a sect for each religion, of people that decided to follow thei religion word for word. You can't follow the binble word for word or you'd be a walking paradox. People can do good and be religious, but people can't do good with religion, that's my point. It's not the first goal to abolsh religion, it's impossible with that frame of mind. What do you expect? That everyone is just waiting to be argued out of their religion. You have to show respect and tolerance of their beliefs and pressure them to good as a person instead of as a religious follower.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DoomedOne
People can do good and be religious, but people can't do good with religion, that's my point. It's not the first goal to abolish religion, it's impossible with that frame of mind. What do you expect? That everyone is just waiting to be argued out of their religion. You have to show respect and tolerance of their beliefs and pressure them to good as a person instead of as a religious follower.

I disagree. When you show "respect and tolerance" for reactionary ideas and practices, you simply encourage their proponents to "hang in there".

When you confront reactionary ideas, then people who actually want to "do the right thing" will start to think seriously about the elaborate nonsense they've been taught to believe.

Some people, unfortunately, don't want to "do the right thing".

So sterner measures are required.

[DoomedOne]

But with the idea that all religious people are lsot, they are our enemies, makes you no better than a religious person trying to do the right thing by following their ideologies. Just ebcause they label themselves something doesn't make them a bad human being, though if you try and tell them it does, they feel pressured to be more strict with how they follow their religion. People simply need to see the other side of things as something human instead of trying to think, "us against them."

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by DoomedOne@May 4 2005, 11:01 PM
..though if you try and tell them it does, they feel pressured to be more strict with how they follow their religion. People simply need to see the other side of things as something human instead of trying to think, "us against them."

I agree; we need to appeal to people rather than running the religious off with torches and pitchforks (that would be how to fuck ourselves).

Other than this and RS' atheist position, we basically agree on this issues I have seen, as do many "religious" members but they may get chased up the ol' windmill instead of us just giving them a chance to learn. Certain members here like to pull out the "dunce hat," to make "examples."

[Jersey Devil]

You see, the thing that bothers me about your position is the same thing that bothers me about the position of the religious zealots that you claim to despise. Indeed, both positions are very similar actually as both claim to hold an absolute truth which they can never prove. Can you prove that there is not a God Redstar2000?

Furthermore, as for this being the exception not the rule. I'll admit that that is true in regards to the White Rose, but what about the abolitionist movement in which religious figures played a large role? Would you make the same claim there? Let us not forget that the first major advocate against the practice of slavery was Saint Patrick.

[cormacobear]

Redstar have you read John Pauls book on Labour? It's called "Priority of Labor". Or anything by Gustavo Gutierrez.

[encephalon]

Redstar have you read John Pauls book on Labour? It's called "Priority of Labor". Or anything by Gustavo Gutierrez.

I really hope that's not the same John Paul who felt it his godly duty to destroy all forms of communism.

I don't think people that believe in a god are bad people because of it. Religious people are capable of doing good things. I do think, however, that such delusional characteristics are frequently taken advantage of by the status quo, regardless of whether or not the person adheres to a "personal religion" or organized religion. Unless you completely make up your own god(s), you are subject to the sway of organized religion.

Spirituality is flight from reality. Much like the bourgeois locks himself up in a country club where the unpleasantness of the world is cloaked, so too do the religious. Religion is inherently reactionary in two manners; first, 99% of the time it pushes for support of the status quo, impeding progress. Second, by withdrawing into a make-believe world the problems of the real world remain, permanently. It does not make a person evil, but it does become quite a large part of the problem itself.

Trying to Force people to stop believing in whatever nonsense they believe, of course, would make them even more reactionary. It always has. But I find it very troubling that people are so delusional, and I will always discourage it.

Yes, delusional. It fits perfectly into the psychological meaning of the word. It's the beginning of schizophrenia.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Jersey Devil@May 5 2005, 07:25 AM
You see, the thing that bothers me about your position is the same thing that bothers me about the position of the religious zealots that you claim to despise. Indeed, both positions are very similar actually as both claim to hold an absolute truth which they can never prove. Can you prove that there is not a God Redstar2000?

Blah blah blah.

Is there any other argument besides the shitty "you cannot prove that X does NOT exist!" justification of nonsensical wacko beliefs?

An atheist is not supposed to prove that "god" doesn't exist, for the same reason I'm not supposed to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

If anyone claims some invisible entity exists, then THEY must prove it exists.

When we are involving things like crusades, imposed morality, support of dictatorships, bombs in abortion clinics and teaching cretinism in schools, then such nonsensical claims are useless.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do@May 5 2005, 02:37 AM

An atheist is not supposed to prove that "god" doesn't exist, for the same reason I'm not supposed to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

If anyone claims some invisible entity exists, then THEY must prove it exists.

Why because you say so .

The fact you can't prove he doesn't exist is a profound argument for why you can't kill an idea without evidence. From a round earth to we evolved from monkey's no one beleives until it's been proven. People won't, subconciously, give up an idea until it is no longer sufficent for conciuos beleif.

So until it is proven God doesn't exist people will beleive in and worship him, and until peak oil is reached noone will beleive it's just around the corner either.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do@May 5 2005, 02:37 AM
An atheist is not supposed to prove that "god" doesn't exist, for the same reason I'm not supposed to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

If anyone claims some invisible entity exists, then THEY must prove it exists.

I am going to disagree on this point, as the atheist makes the claim that "no god exists," they also have the burden of proof.
I am not saying though that the atheist position is not more logically based, as it does have some evidence; just no proof and if you are one to make assumption or have "beliefs," that would be the logical "choice," though "choosing" is illogical.

Also, the fact that you deny "the god complex" or "santa," is giving them too much credit. Denying something shows that you have considered it and if I had not been indoctrinated into theism and had the chance to understand logical thought previously, I would have been an agnostic earlier, as I see NO PROOF of ANY claims, they don't even merit consideration; so I see spirituality as baseless and inane (making me in all application a "weak atheist").

If you want to address the issue further, we could do so in the agnosticism thread (first link in my sig.).

When we are involving things like crusades, imposed morality, support of dictatorships, bombs in abortion clinics and teaching cretinism in schools, then such nonsensical claims are useless.

I agree but I think you meant creationism

cre•tin•ism (krt“n-¹z”…m) n. A congenital condition caused by a deficiency of thyroid hormone during prenatal development and characterized in childhood by dwarfed stature, mental retardation, dystrophy of the bones, and a low basal metabolism. Also called congenital myxedema.

[cormacobear]

Creationism is pretty much only taught in Amereican schools with regard to the first world. Most countries in the first world require the teaching of evolution.

[Jersey Devil]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+May 5 2005, 08:37 AM--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ May 5 2005, 08:37 AM)

Jersey Devil

@May 5 2005, 07:25 AM
You see, the thing that bothers me about your position is the same thing that bothers me about the position of the religious zealots that you claim to despise. Indeed, both positions are very similar actually as both claim to hold an absolute truth which they can never prove. Can you prove that there is not a God Redstar2000?

Blah blah blah.

Is there any other argument besides the shitty "you cannot prove that X does NOT exist!" justification of nonsensical wacko beliefs?

An atheist is not supposed to prove that "god" doesn't exist, for the same reason I'm not supposed to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

If anyone claims some invisible entity exists, then THEY must prove it exists.

When we are involving things like crusades, imposed morality, support of dictatorships, bombs in abortion clinics and teaching cretinism in schools, then such nonsensical claims are useless. [/b]

Is this your idea of a response? Please, go away child and let redstar respond.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Jersey Devil@May 5 2005, 03:53 AM
Is this your idea of a response? Please, go away child and let redstar respond.

Why must everyone take it out on the children? Sure, degrade the most defenceless...

Anyway; bring on the great redstar, for no other is worthy!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 5 2005, 04:57 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 5 2005, 04:57 AM)

DoomedOne

People can do good and be religious, but people can't do good with religion, that's my point. It's not the first goal to abolish religion, it's impossible with that frame of mind. What do you expect? That everyone is just waiting to be argued out of their religion. You have to show respect and tolerance of their beliefs and pressure them to good as a person instead of as a religious follower.

I disagree. When you show "respect and tolerance" for reactionary ideas and practices, you simply encourage their proponents to "hang in there".

When you confront reactionary ideas, then people who actually want to "do the right thing" will start to think seriously about the elaborate nonsense they've been taught to believe.

Some people, unfortunately, don't want to "do the right thing".

So sterner measures are required.

[/b]

This post really exposes the logical fallacies to which you cling as a radical.

In this thread, it would be the one that says if some part of something is bad, or has been bad in the past, then all of it is necessarily bad - all the time.

Most of us learned this is not so back in 8th grade.