Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Religious Dialogue

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2012, 06:44
Exoprism wrote:
Actually, no. What I was saying is that everything religion has done, so has non-religion. This obviously points to the fact that simple dialectical and historical materialism is at play because these are human contributions, not religious.

Which nobody said they weren't. Google "form".

Exoprism wrote:
If the best you can come up with to support religion is something that can be done without it, then you've failed in your task. People create buildings and art with inspiration from nature, oceans, books, films, imagination etc.

Yeah but you don't build cathedrals or need flying buttresses without Christianity. Ignoring the uniqueness of various religious cultures and their effects on their peoples is a silly idea.

Exoprism wrote:
Religions, unlike what their followers and holy books say, don't have a monopoly on anything. We don't need religion for morals, government, economy, education, art..... I mean seriously, what do we need it for? We'd do just fine without it and since it causes more harm than good, we should do just that.

We need socialist religion because religion is an ingrained part of political power. Acting like you're above that type of power is idealist to the extreme. I know I'm a pretty hardline materialist for a religious person but it's amazing to me that I'm less idealistic than many marxists when it comes to religion.

Exoprism wrote:
Much to your dismay, I never said it was. Religious people have a tendency to see things that aren't there and I'm starting to get concerned with some members of this debate....



Exoprism wrote:
On the whole, monotheists were a lot more violent, they weren't "more efficient".

Yes we were. We took the legacy of Rome, we also kicked off a golden age (or were the precioitating event to it) in the Arab world, we were better organized and our ideas more palatable. The pagans' failure is clear to see today by their absence from existence.

Exoprism wrote:
But now you say this? Don't think there's a correlation here?

At the very least we were better killers.
It comes down to two things: organization and humanocentric theology (as opposed to theocentric).

Exoprism wrote:
Furthermore, there's around 2 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims in a world population of almost 7 billion, that's hardly "the world completely".

4 out 7 is most.

Exoprism wrote:
It was actually the pagan religions that had the capacity to expand since they were accepting of almost any new god that someone else happened to worship.

And that's why their ideas had no defenders.

Exoprism wrote:
The Christians were persecuted because they were viewed as intolerant of other gods and at one point were called "atheists". It wasn't until Constantine decided to convert to Christianity, itself the product of evolution from the tribal monotheist cult of the Jews, that things started taking off for them. They got to inherit the wealth, strength and knowledge of an empire built with no thanks to monotheism.

So you blame the Christians for seizing Rome? What was so great about the Romans? They'd fragged over their empire long before the christians won it.

Exoprism wrote:
Have you ever read the Bible? Judaism appears as one of the most violent religions ever invented if we are to take its word. Not to forget the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is justified because "god gave them the land". Ironically, genocide was the same method used when the Jews first landed there after the Exodus according to the Bible. I obviously think that rhetoric is simply employed to justify imperialism but it can't be denied that many Jews (and Christians) are buying into this.

Uh like all the genocides mentioned in the bible consisted of killing one village of like fifty people. We killed way more people last year than all the people killed in the bible.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 299
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2009, 10:14
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2012, 13:48
Dagoth I don't really understanding why your making such a strenuous effort to defend religion. If your making the argument that its a good tool to manipulate people then you have a good point. However, if your suggesting religion has more pro's then con's Id ask you to pick up a history book. Personal spirituality is the only compatible form of belief in Communism, because the sense of community religion often provides is substituted by working class solidarity.

Also, I'm not sure where your going with the cathedral thing. So brutal Catholic oppression in France resulted in a nice building. So what. Fascists produced some cool architecture to. What's your point? I get the feeling your a very rational person who is clinging to irrational beliefs, thus I believe your not beyond saving as good Christians would say
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2012, 13:58
Quote:
We need socialist religion because religion is an ingrained part of political power.


Only where you come from.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Mar 2012, 15:55
Wouldn't socialist religion be a belief in Man and his ability to do great things?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 989
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jul 2004, 01:47
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2012, 16:46
Quote:
So brutal Catholic oppression in France resulted in a nice building.


Just to clarify: are you actually saying that the religious architecture was a direct result of "oppression"? Are you so narrow-minded and unwilling to accept that for millions of practitioners, religion is a powerfully positive force in their lives and not something that oppresses them?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 00:22
Red_Bull wrote:
Dagoth I don't really understanding why your making such a strenuous effort to defend religion.

Not so much a defense of religion as an attack on atheist views that they're more communist for their theology.

Red_Bull wrote:
If your making the argument that its a good tool to manipulate people then you have a good point.

It's not the point to manipulate the people, rather we should aim to remove this tool from the hands of our class enemies. Class hegemony requires dominating all spheres of thought.

Red_Bull wrote:
However, if your suggesting religion has more pro's then con's Id ask you to pick up a history book

Such a weird argument. Religion is justification for events that would have occurred regardless. Differently of course but it was material motivations for their actions. Religion is only as bad as we make it.

Red_Bull wrote:
Personal spirituality is the only compatible form of belief in Communism, because the sense of community religion often provides is substituted by working class solidarity. ]

it's the same thing. Islam talks about how the world will one day be entirely Muslim. This is not as bourgeoisie theologians and fundamentalist fools read it, ie that the world will bow down to Allah, but that the world will live as Muslims regardless of what they believe.

Red_Bull wrote:
Also, I'm not sure where your going with the cathedral thing.

That it is idiiotic to claim that religion hasn't left a lasting mark on our civilizations and cultures. Ie that religion hasn't done anything.

Red_Bull wrote:
So brutal Catholic oppression in France resulted in a nice building. So what. Fascists produced some cool architecture to. What's your point?

What's left of fascist construction is what fascism did.

Red_Bull wrote:
I get the feeling your a very rational person who is clinging to irrational beliefs, thus I believe your not beyond saving as good Christians would say

Interesting. What do you think of the idea that I was a militant atheist for years? And that my position on religion in socialism has nothing to do with my personal belief that God is more likely than not? There are lots of contradictions in atheist theology as with every other religion, belief in non-belief and all.

EDIT:
Forgot a couple things.
Mabool wrote:
Only where you come from.

Only in parts of Europe is religion strongly separated from political power (although isn't the CDU still a big German party?). Latin America and the Middle East are in the same boat as us. Although you surprise me. You actually think it's a bad idea to seize religious power?

runequester wrote:
Wouldn't socialist religion be a belief in Man and his ability to do great things?

I don't think you need to build a new cosmology but to assert a proletarian ideology onto existing systems just as the bourgeoisie brought all culture under their ideologies. The God-Builders were wrong because what they intended to do would reinforce dogma and halt the progress towards post-dogmatic/organized theology.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 23:17
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 10 Mar 2012, 03:00
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Yeah but you don't build cathedrals or need flying buttresses without Christianity. Ignoring the uniqueness of various religious cultures and their effects on their peoples is a silly idea.

You still don't get it. Just because religion inspired artwork or buildings doesn't mean religion is true or has a monopoly on inspiration. Those great buildings and artwork would have been created whether religion was there or not. Furthermore, let's give credit where credit is due; it wasn't religion that made those buildings but the surplus value created through empire that had its justification in religion. Mosques were actually inspired by architecture that either predated Islam or was "created" by other religions altogether and no doubt the architecture preceding it went through a similar evolution. You're a terrible dialectical materialist. Shame.

Religion has contributed zero. How unfortunate.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
We need socialist religion because religion is an ingrained part of political power. Acting like you're above that type of power is idealist to the extreme. I know I'm a pretty hardline materialist for a religious person but it's amazing to me that I'm less idealistic than many marxists when it comes to religion.

Did you just call me an idealist for rejecting your dictator god? Oh the irony.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Yes we were. We took the legacy of Rome, we also kicked off a golden age (or were the precioitating event to it) in the Arab world, we were better organized and our ideas more palatable. The pagans' failure is clear to see today by their absence from existence.

Humans kicked off a golden age.

You know what, to hell with it. Atheism and secularism is paving the way of the future through our science and revolutionary theory. How do you like that? No doubt you're going to scream it's a human contribution. But whenever a religious person made something it must be because of their religion. It's this childish stupidity that lead Comrade Hoxha to abolish religious filth in Albania. Unfortunately, the revisionists and reactionaries stopped the campaign after he died but his legacy is still visible there today.

I also find it hilarious that you're lumping all monotheist religions together as if they were all good friends that held hands through their respective "legacies". Not only did this never happen, their theology is radically different and puts hostility between the different monotheist camps to this day.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
At the very least we were better killers.
It comes down to two things: organization and humanocentric theology (as opposed to theocentric).

You say that like you're proud of it. Humanocentric? Pathetic. We aren't the prized goal of Darwinian evolution unlike what you would believe (if you even accept evolution at all). And your religion is theocentric, everything revolves around allah and we're all his slaves (literally, abdallah is a common name, it just means slave of god). Stop trying to play down the lunacy of theology because you're not fooling me.

Organization? You weren't any more organized than pagan empires. In fact, the whole christian empire was inherited from pagans. I've got no idea where you religionists get off trying to lay claim to advances made by pagans for your tribal monotheist cult. To be honest, states are more organized now than ever with no thanks to religion.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
4 out 7 is most.

3.2 out of 7 isn't even half. Who cares if it was the whole 7 billion, it doesn't make monotheism true.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
And that's why their ideas had no defenders.

You're right, pagans hardly had any zealous bigots slaughtering people to convert to paganism.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Uh like all the genocides mentioned in the bible consisted of killing one village of like fifty people. We killed way more people last year than all the people killed in the bible.

Looks like you've never read the bible before.
Soviet cogitations: 987
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2007, 18:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 10 Mar 2012, 13:58
Exoprism wrote:
You're right, pagans hardly had any zealous bigots slaughtering people to convert to paganism.

Paganism doesn't care. Paganism is completely motionless and is extremely class-based at its core. Why do you think the nazis loved paganism? It's because paganism enforced ruthless racial and class differences. Christian theology is extremely egalitarian and anti-class. That it eventually became a tool of the new ruling classes doesn't change the fact that in its core, Christianity is very progressive. The centrality of love is evil to pagans because it would mean loving the weaker too, which is something they could never have understood.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 14:18
Quote:
You're a terrible dialectical materialist. Shame. Religion has contributed zero. How unfortunate.


You're the terrible dialectical materialist if you think that.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 111
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2011, 06:02
Pioneer
Post 10 Mar 2012, 19:25
Wow, I left for a few days and I don't even have enough time to dissect all of these childish, dumb views on religion made by these crybaby Marxists.
I'll try to tackle this a little though.
Quote:
You're the terrible dialectical materialist if you think that.
I agree, which is something I thought I wouldn't be saying to you soon.
Quote:
Paganism doesn't care. Paganism is completely motionless and is extremely class-based at its core. Why do you think the nazis loved paganism? It's because paganism enforced ruthless racial and class differences. Christian theology is extremely egalitarian and anti-class. That it eventually became a tool of the new ruling classes doesn't change the fact that in its core, Christianity is very progressive. The centrality of love is evil to pagans because it would mean loving the weaker too, which is something they could never have understood.
Absolutely. But our whiner comrades are going to rebutt with something stupid like "wah wah Hitlah wuz cwistian!"
Quote:
Religion has contributed zero. How unfortunate.
I literally haven't stopped laughing since I read this. I see there has been much talk about architecture, art and music, but what about the meaning of life for billions? Go back and read a book.
Quote:
Did you just call me an idealist for rejecting your dictator god? Oh the irony.
He calls you an idealist because you are. Do you really believe that religion is just some force that is only evil and kills babies and burns down science? Come on.
Quote:
Humans kicked off a golden age.
You know what, to hell with it. Atheism and secularism is paving the way of the future through our science and revolutionary theory. How do you like that? No doubt you're going to scream it's a human contribution. But whenever a religious person made something it must be because of their religion. It's this childish stupidity that lead Comrade Hoxha to abolish religious filth in Albania. Unfortunately, the revisionists and reactionaries stopped the campaign after he died but his legacy is still visible there today.
I also find it hilarious that you're lumping all monotheist religions together as if they were all good friends that held hands through their respective "legacies". Not only did this never happen, their theology is radically different and puts hostility between the different monotheist camps to this day.
WAH WAH WAH afeeists r soooo kewl and religun is bad and nobodies never benfited frum itttt!!
Quote:
3.2 out of 7 isn't even half. Who cares if it was the whole 7 billion, it doesn't make monotheism true.
Maybe, but there's tons of other religions with large followings. Sikhs, Buddists, Hindus and such.
Quote:
Looks like you've never read the bible before.
looks like you've never read or done anything before.
Quote:
Dagoth I don't really understanding why your making such a strenuous effort to defend religion. If your making the argument that its a good tool to manipulate people then you have a good point. However, if your suggesting religion has more pro's then con's Id ask you to pick up a history book. Personal spirituality is the only compatible form of belief in Communism, because the sense of community religion often provides is substituted by working class solidarity.
Also, I'm not sure where your going with the cathedral thing. So brutal Catholic oppression in France resulted in a nice building. So what. Fascists produced some cool architecture to. What's your point? I get the feeling your a very rational person who is clinging to irrational beliefs, thus I believe your not beyond saving as good Christians would say
Are you a historian? Probably not. Maybe you are. I'd like to argue that whatever wrongs have been comitted by "religion" were not actually wrong-doings of religion, but used as an excuse. Many if not all of the major "communist" mass-murderers were Atheist, but I wouldn't be as stupid to say it was Atheism that killed all of those people. But you Atheists seem to love doing that to religion. Plus, just because wrong doings happen under a religion's name, doesn't make that religion wrong.

Also, think you intolerant atheists need to read this
Quote:
Just to clarify: are you actually saying that the religious architecture was a direct result of "oppression"? Are you so narrow-minded and unwilling to accept that for millions of practitioners, religion is a powerfully positive force in their lives and not something that oppresses them?
I've been trying to explain that forever now, and this guy couldn't have said it better. Religion brings joy to people all over, whether you like it or not. That doesn't prove religion, but it proves that it isn't just evil or something. I'm religious and I am very happy. The thought of becoming an atheist not only disturbs me on a logical basis, but on a emotional basis as well.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 20:25
Quote:
The thought of becoming an atheist not only disturbs me on a logical basis, but on a emotional basis as well.


Been there done that. Therefore I'm completely certain that your entire childish "resistance" (seriously you're the biggest crybaby of all here. Maybe you think your aggression makes you sound confident, but it sounds more like panic) is just that - trying to invalidate "bad thoughts". A Christian has to control their mind all the time, after all. But that makes it completely impossible to try to reason with you, which is why I've quit trying. I mean I remember what I was like. I came to the realization that there is no God all by myself and nobody would ever have been able to convince me. So maybe it would help that nobody here is expecting you to agree. You don't have to answer in that wannabe confident tone. In fact you don't have to answer at all, unless you like debating against walls. If you're intelligent enough, you'll realize that we were right all along, all by yourself, within the next couple years.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

Quote:
simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether


"I know that God exists"

Quote:
minimisation: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)


Call everybody a crybaby who explains to you that even if God existed, that wouldn't be a reason to worship him ("You believe in God, you just hate him", "cry me a damn river")

Anybody who wants to talk about religion to you should try psychoanalysis instead of debate.

Also:

Quote:
Studies of epistemology, the process of learning, suggest that the patterns of grief are one way of describing the basic patterns of integrating new information that conflicts with previous beliefs.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." said Arthur Schopenhauer of the learning process, which corresponds to the five stages of grief with denial being ridicule, opposition being anger and bargaining, and acceptance being depression and acceptance.


Also about the happiness thing: Tonight I'm going to be happier than you'll ever be. I do this on a regular basis.
Religion may have some capability of making people happy, but it does a terrible job at it. Weed is better, and even weed isn't guaranteed to lift your mood.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 111
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2011, 06:02
Pioneer
Post 10 Mar 2012, 21:17
Quote:
Been there done that. Therefore I'm completely certain that your entire childish "resistance" (seriously you're the biggest crybaby of all here. Maybe you think your aggression makes you sound confident, but it sounds more like panic) is just that - trying to invalidate "bad thoughts". A Christian has to control their mind all the time, after all. But that makes it completely impossible to try to reason with you, which is why I've quit trying. I mean I remember what I was like. I came to the realization that there is no God all by myself and nobody would ever have been able to convince me. So maybe it would help that nobody here is expecting you to agree. You don't have to answer in that wannabe confident tone. In fact you don't have to answer at all, unless you like debating against walls. If you're intelligent enough, you'll realize that we were right all along, all by yourself, within the next couple years
You are right. At one point, I was genuinely afraid that I might be wrong. After that discussion though, those fears have been dismissed. You'll end up a Christian too, at least you probably will. If I had a dollar for every middle aged person who comes to my church after years of ignorance, nihilism, atheism, disbelief and false-pride to accept God, I'd be a rich guy. We all find out one day that we aren't God. If you're intelligent enough, you will do the same. My agression is towards ignorance, and the common Atheists' smug and stupid stance on religion.
Quote:
"I know that God exists"
It's true.
Quote:
Call everybody a crybaby who explains to you that even if God existed, that wouldn't be a reason to worship him ("You believe in God, you just hate him", "cry me a damn river")
You are a bunch of crybabies, and that seems to be the bulk of your argument. If you truly hate this life that God has given you, even though you probably live in a first world country and go places to bitch about how hard your life is, then cool, I can see why you wouldn't worship God. Meanwhile I've read that there are upwards 20k converts each day to monotheistic religions in Africa, where people generally have nothing.
Quote:
Also about the happiness thing: Tonight I'm going to be happier than you'll ever be. I do this on a regular basis.
Religion may have some capability of making people happy, but it does a terrible job at it. Weed is better, and even weed isn't guaranteed to lift your mood.
How do you know you'll be happier? Even so, it'll be temporary. A drug is tomporary and it literally is the opium of the people. Religion is forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crybaby
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 22:13
Dude please stop. You're making us rational theists look bad. I get you want to defend your Answer but you've got to pick your battles. Acting as though atheists are just anti-religious is as insulting as the atheist claim that we don't believe in God either. My point is you're getting nowhere fast.

Exoprism wrote:
You still don't get it. Just because religion inspired artwork or buildings doesn't mean religion is true or has a monopoly on inspiration.

Point to where anything I said claims religion has a monopoly on anything? It doesn't even have a monopoly on theism.

Exoprism wrote:
Those great buildings and artwork would have been created whether religion was there or not.

Why would we build mosques without Islam?

Exoprism wrote:
Furthermore, let's give credit where credit is due; it wasn't religion that made those buildings but the surplus value created through empire that had its justification in religion.

Yeah what about it? Religious concerns still ended up forming the material.

Exoprism wrote:
Mosques were actually inspired by architecture that either predated Islam or was "created" by other religions altogether and no doubt the architecture preceding it went through a similar evolution. You're a terrible dialectical materialist. Shame.

A. Duh B. So now we devolve to outright insults.

Exoprism wrote:
Humans kicked off a golden age.

Sure did, largely thanks to the organization of the disparate and rival Arab tribes into Islam. Organization was monotheism's greatest strength.

Exoprism wrote:
You know what, to hell with it. Atheism and secularism is paving the way of the future through our science and revolutionary theory. How do you like that? No doubt you're going to scream it's a human contribution.

I was right to call you a fundamentalist.

Exoprism wrote:
But whenever a religious person made something it must be because of their religion. It's this childish stupidity that lead Comrade Hoxha to abolish religious filth in Albania. Unfortunately, the revisionists and reactionaries stopped the campaign after he died but his legacy is still visible there today.

Haha Hoxha ha.

Exoprism wrote:
I also find it hilarious that you're lumping all monotheist religions together as if they were all good friends that held hands through their respective "legacies". Not only did this never happen, their theology is radically different and puts hostility between the different monotheist camps to this day.

I like how we're referred to as a intertwined cabal of anti-human forces when atheists talk about big ol bad religion and how it's the crux of all our issues, but the second I speak of theists in general some atheist will immediately point to internal divisions. Which is a hallmark of anticommunist/imperialist rhetoric to boot.

Exoprism wrote:
You say that like you're proud of it. Humanocentric? Pathetic.

Humanocentrism was far more progressive than any pagan religion which entirely sublimated human existence to the wavering whims of the Gods.

Exoprism wrote:
We aren't the prized goal of Darwinian evolution unlike what you would believe (if you even accept evolution at all).

Yes we are. We're the strongest species to ever exist. Oh and you're embarrassing yourself with your accusations.

Exoprism wrote:
And your religion is theocentric, everything revolves around allah and we're all his slaves (literally, abdallah is a common name, it just means slave of god). Stop trying to play down the lunacy of theology because you're not fooling me.

No it isn't theocentric. Allah is not the center he is the whole. Creation is the center and we are the center of creation.

Exoprism wrote:
Organization? You weren't any more organized than pagan empires.

Oh really? Thats why Islam covered the entire middle east and north Africa in under two hundred years? That would be an amazing feat of organization even today.

Exoprism wrote:
In fact, the whole christian empire was inherited from pagans.

The Christians actually incorporated the north something the pagans never achieved.

Exoprism wrote:
I've got no idea where you religionists get off trying to lay claim to advances made by pagans for your tribal monotheist cult. To be honest, states are more organized now than ever with no thanks to religion.

You stand on the advances of monotheism as much as they stood on the advances of paganism. Such is the fate of progressive peoples. Also nice usage of "cult" which only has a negative connotation because of Christian propaganda.

Exoprism wrote:
3.2 out of 7 isn't even half. Who cares if it was the whole 7 billion, it doesn't make monotheism true.

I didn't say it did. You were the one bringing up a numbers argument.

Exoprism wrote:
You're right, pagans hardly had any zealous bigots slaughtering people to convert to paganism.

Part of supremacism is wanting to destroy your enemies not convert them. It's not a fluke that fascists upheldany pagan values.

Exoprism wrote:
Looks like you've never read the bible before.

Okay? Genocide was a trivial matter in antiquity. We (America alone) killed thousands of people last year.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 22:19
Dagoth Ur wrote:
You're making us rational theists look bad.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity

English needs this.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 22:29
Intonation solves most of the problem.

Oh and also I'm starting to like the idea of syncretic monism.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 22:32
I approve of monism. To call it syncretic sounds slightly contradictory though I get what you mean. What sources are you drawing from?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 10 Mar 2012, 22:53
It's pretty amusing to see someone who calls himself a Christian act so completely different from their teacher.

Das, Your type of fundamentalist view of Christianism as self-evident is exactly the type of parasitic latching that is taking it down. Spirituality should never be abtract and self-evident. Also, it shouldn't be a consolation that you "fall into" because of apathy or because of the desire to rest as you get older. It should be a pretty hard task.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 23:17
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 10 Mar 2012, 22:54
Mabool wrote:
You're the terrible dialectical materialist if you think that.

If it has contributed anything to humanity ex nihilo, instead of something that isn't easily copied or inspired by something else and which isn't easily explained by dialectics, then I would be religious. So I don't think it's too much to claim that religion has contributed zero to humanity.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:
I literally haven't stopped laughing since I read this. I see there has been much talk about architecture, art and music, but what about the meaning of life for billions? Go back and read a book.

Don't worry, I've read many books.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:
He calls you an idealist because you are. Do you really believe that religion is just some force that is only evil and kills babies and burns down science? Come on.

Did I say that? Nope... But yeah they are prominent in that area too.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:
WAH WAH WAH afeeists r soooo kewl and religun is bad and nobodies never benfited frum itttt!!

You're either trolling or your intelligence just fell below zero because this isn't a very well-thought response to what I wrote.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:
Maybe, but there's tons of other religions with large followings. Sikhs, Buddists, Hindus and such.

And they all tell each other that "We're right and you're wrong".

Das_ALoveStory wrote:
looks like you've never read or done anything before.

I've actually read the entire Bible, cover to cover, unlike the overwhelming majority of Christians.

Comrade Kaiwen wrote:
Paganism doesn't care. Paganism is completely motionless and is extremely class-based at its core. Why do you think the nazis loved paganism? It's because paganism enforced ruthless racial and class differences. Christian theology is extremely egalitarian and anti-class. That it eventually became a tool of the new ruling classes doesn't change the fact that in its core, Christianity is very progressive. The centrality of love is evil to pagans because it would mean loving the weaker too, which is something they could never have understood.

Your rant on Paganism was completely false. Class-based, ruthless enforcer of racial and class differences? This is something that ALL religions are guilty of and it's not like paganism is written down in holy scripture. Where the hell did you get your ideas from?

Christianity, and religion in general, was progressive at one time and is now regressive. It is going to be replaced by science, reason and Marxism.

The Nazis didn't really love paganism, I'm not sure where you pulled that from. The Wehrmacht had Gott mit uns (God with us) written across their belt, Hitler constantly invoked god in his speeches and if you've ever read Mein Kampf you'll never mistake him for a pagan; his monotheistic religious beliefs come through very clear.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2012, 23:03
@mabool: Not much more than just having read about monism and realizing its efficiency over my own explanations of essentially the same thing. The syncretic part is that religions arose to solve material and spiritual problems and that different religions should be seen as different schools rather than different things altogether. Atheism would be just as valid a school in this setup.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 10 Mar 2012, 23:15
You have to be wary of synchetism, because it usually leads you to nihilistic new age, which are just gooey sentimentalist praxis hidden behind a smug western supremacy (you interpret other people's conception of sacred and their ritualistic exercises and reduce them to the "same", which you arrive via an intellectual exercise).

If you really want to explore your religious leanings, then look into Traditionalists such as Henri Corbin, who studied Islam and Sufiism extensively. He adds his own stuff, such as the concept of Mundus Imaginarius, but still very much worth a read. The Traditionalists deal with the concept of an "esoteric core" that is present in all religions, but steer clear of synchretism.

Of course, others would rail against even this "esoteric core"...

Also, have you ever read Mullah Sadra? It would be a curious exercise, since many consider him basically as Islam's Hegel.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron