God/s
Submitted by stevein7 on Tue, 2007-12-11 17:03
Il fatto è che, malgrado tutte le scoperte scientifiche di questo mondo, il controllo religioso sulla società continua ad essere molto forte, e non solo nei paesi integralisti o in quelli estremamente poveri in cui seminare l’oppio dei preti è particolarmente facile, ma anche in Occidente. quoted from BC
Very rough translation;
The fact is..religious control continues to be very strong....not only in the extremely poor countries....but also in the West.
As far as I understand, Marx supported a discredited idea, that matter was eternal and that there was no origin of matter. But it is now scientifically accepted that there was indeed an origin to matter, which can be measured at around 14 billion years ago.
How do we explain the apparent fact that matter arose from nothing? Is it not this, rather than the fear of death as the BC article points out, which fuels religious conceptions?
Forum:
ICT sections
User login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Source: The Communist
Source: The Communist Review, June 1924, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Publisher: Communist Party of Great Britain
Transcription/Markup: Brian Reid
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Dear Comrade,
In the Forum of last month’s issue of the Communist Review, I noticed a very misleading article entitled “Should We Combat Religion,” criticising the action of the Enlarged Executive of the Comintern for attacking religion, and preaching Atheism in the interests of Communism. According to the writing, “it is not religion itself that our Party should fight against, but only the falsification of it in the interests of capitalist society.”
For a Communist to hold such a confusing opinion is, to say the least, dangerous—both to himself and to the militant interests of the working class. The Christian teachings of the I.L.P. before the war, led to pacifism, which is, judging from the words of Christ, true Christianity, and pacifism lulls into inactivity the best fighting elements of the working class, thereby leaving them entirely at the mercy of the capitalist class, without the will or the means of resistance.
Would Lenin have accomplished the Revolution if he had adhered to the Christian doctrine of pacifism instead of waging the class war? Will the Communist Parties in the various countries overthrow capitalism by the Christian doctrine of love and gentle persuasion instead of by the use of force!
No, decidedly not! No one can be consistently both a Christian and a Communist. A true Christian believes in turning the other cheek, resisting not oppression, returning good for evil. It would be madness for a Communist to adopt such an attitude towards the oppression of the capitalist class.
CONTINUES
According to Frederick
According to Frederick Engels, so surely does the acceptance of the materialistic conception of history lead to the exclusion of religion that the attempt to couple them betrays charlatanism, or lack of thought. It is indeed surprising that any member of the Communist Party who naturally accepts the materialistic conception of history, which leaves no room for divine influence in the making of history should wish to introduce religion into the Party. If we adopted religion, the result would be disastrous.
I would advise Comrade Baldwin, and all wavering comrades to study Bishop Brown’s “Communism and Christianism,” price 1/-, published by the Communist Party, which ably describes the conflict between religion and Communism.
It should be the duty of every member of the Party to read this book, written to a Christian Socialist by an American bishop converted from orthodox Christianity to Communism, from which the following is a quotation—
“The contradiction in terms known as the Christian Socialist is inevitably antagonistic to working class interests and the waging of the class struggle. His policy (that of the Christian Socialist) is the conciliation of classes, the fraternity of robbers and robbed, not the end of classes. His avowed object, indeed, is usually to purge the Socialist movement of its materialism, and this means to purge it of its Socialism, and to divert from its materialisms to the fruitless chasing of spiritual will-o’-the-wisps. A Christian Socialist is, indeed, an anti-Socialist.”
I will conclude with the memorable words of Comrade Trotsky—
“And therefore, we adopt a ruthlessly irreconcilable attitude to anyone who utters a single word to the effect that mysticism or religious sentimentality might be combined with Communism. Religiousness is irreconcilable with the Marxian standpoint.
“We are of opinion that Atheism, as an inseparable element of the materialist view of life, is a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist.
“He who believes in another world is not capable of concentrating all his passion on the transformation of this one."
Yours fraternally,
LESLIE MASON,
Barrow Branch
I don’t think so. I think
I don't think so. I think that the afterlife, and god, worry a lot more the peoples, rather than the origin of matter.. In my opinion there is nothing wrong in thinking of the afterlife, until you don't start to feel in subjection towards an entity of any sort. It is the subjection towards the idea of god, and it's use in the dominating class that must be corrected, and not simply any human curiosity for afterlife.
Engels has swimped out the
Engels has swimped out the field with his magistral "AntiDuhring" form all previous beliefs.
I think we don't have to fight against religion on its own, but vs the social causes who produce it.
Atheism is another form of religion - a sort of negative kind of it.
could be accetable into everydays propaganda , f.e. among deeply religion scared people - much less into official statements of thick politcal value.
Afterlife
Afterlife
I am going to read Anti Duhring again!
above all where he says ( if
above all where he says ( if my memory don't go wrong ) that Materia exist for its own nature. It has no begin and no end ( on the humane scale of understanding ). Thinking of a begin/end takes us ,before or after consciuosly or not, to consider the existence of some kind of God beginner of everything - he used to talk about the God's Finger who push the button at the begin of the whole universe.
Materia exists and for his own nature it's on non-stop changing; before the universe we actually know now probably there was another one with different phisical/chemical/biological laws. The nextone will have different ones too.
If matter originated 14 billion years ago..
If matter originated 14 billion years ago..
Cleishbotham
IBRP
If matter originated 14 billion years ago (and it is a very hypothetical postulate) then it is little different from Marx's view that mater in some form has always existed since the timescale is so great that it might as well be the same thing.
However neiterh the origin of matter not the worries religious people (credenti) have about the after life are not the issue.The issue is about the social role that relgion plays in the class struggle. In the 19th Century it was fairly obvious in Victorian England that the Church supported the propertied classes (Marx makes the witty remark that the Church of England would give up all of its 39 Articles before it will give up one article of its property). Today as capitalist decadence relies more and more on the material values of commodity production many turn to religion as a SOCIAL support. It is no accident that Hamas and Hezbollah (but they have Christian equivalents) garner support because they materially fill the void which the states in their areas cannot cover. The Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 was based on the mosque because it provided the welfare to support the poor which the Shah's state did not.
The religious are ideologically our enemies but our attack has always to concentrate on the class system which brings forth religion as a justification for class rule.
The very concept of origin
The very concept of origin (whenever it occured) creates the possibility of some sort of creator. I think perhaps I am questioning our ability to absolutely deny the existance of a deity of whatever description, but nor am I arguing one exists. I think I only want to point out there are limits to our understanding. Of course, I could simply be confused and would certainly accept clarification. As for the religious ideologies, I agree that they prop up class rule.
Is this widely accepted by the scientific community;
God is a communist?
God is a communist?
James 5:1 ¶ Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. 3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. 4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. 5 Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. 6 Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you. 7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. 8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Luke 12:15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
Matthew 6:19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! 24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Pr 13:7 There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches.
Pr 28:6 Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.
Pr 28:6 Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich. Pr 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out. Pr 28:20 A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent. Pr 28:22 He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him. Ec 5:12 The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.
Jer 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
Matthew 19:3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 13 ¶ Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. 16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
for the experts...
for the experts...
Subjection now?
Subjection now?
I do not intend to await the coming of the l
Lord to passively await redmptionas it says in the John quote here. The poor (or meek) shal inherit the earth crap mean just accepting "pie in the sky when you die" to quote Joe Hill and that is precisely what Christianity wanted for the workign class, slaves etc to do
I suppose that many centuries
I suppose that many centuries ago, the only way people could express ideas like a fair form of society was through religious concepts. Obviously, the possibility of building a fair society at that time was zero.
I hardly understand the religious world myself so I am not pushing a religious line, I just find the topic interesting, and find it even more interesting that intellectuals who study the universe etc are still unable to get away from the idea of a creator. I think the catholics talk about "the first cause".
I do not think any bible gives any proof of anything. I think me and you could sit here without any bibles, Korans, religious writing or whatever and come to the same two possible conclusions.
At the risk of looking like a fool, and I probably am - I find both options incredibly difficult to accept. but I cannot think that there is a third option.
Both sound like the replies of a simpleton. OR incredibly advanced scientists. why should someone like Einstein say the universe is a product of intelligent design? Is he a simpleton? Was it for material gain?
Maybe you think this is an utterly futile waste of time, or it is all that really matters - people take both sides.
I don't know....
I know, I know, you're bored already...
I know, I know, you're bored already...
The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in a God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[51] In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[52] Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." He is reported to have said in a conversation with Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[53] Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[53][54] In his book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."[55]
Einstein published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled "Science and Religion" which gave his views on the subject.[56] He says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argued that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." "[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." In Einstein's view, "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)
In a letter to Eric Gutkind in 1954 Einstein said: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."[57]
In a 1954 letter, Einstein rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people. He wrote: "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."[57]
His friend Max Jammer explored Einstein's views on religion thoroughly in the 1999 book Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology
Scientists, God
Scientists, God
I want to take you back to almost two years ago, April 23, 1992. On that day, a discovery was announced that, in the words of the British physicist Steven Hawking, “…is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.” This is remarkable because Steven Hawking has a reputation for understatement.
Michael Turner, from the University of Chicago, says the significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology. As to how holy of a grail we're talking about, George Smoot, who led the team of 30 American astrophysicists who made the discovery said, “What we have found is evidence of the birth of the Universe. It's like looking at God.”
Frederick Burnham, a science historian, said in response to this discovery, “The idea that God created the Universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.”
I am not going to say to you I understand all these because I do not. What I can see is that seemingly emminent scientists are saying God may be responsible for the universe. Now you may say, other emminent scientists are saying the opposite, and its a fair comment. All I can say is that there is no certainty as far as I can see. Does that make me a fool?
Obviusly this is somewhat inconvenient for the communist perspective, it would be easier to say matter has always been, there is no creation/creator.
And this could be the case. the birth and death of infinite universes must surely eventually throw up one where life is possible. But in my mind the rock solid irrefutable 100% certain theoretical foundation for or against creation from nothing is lacking. So what if Feurbach explained that human conception of God is simply a projection of themselves. Does that absolutely prove there was no creation? Beyond any shadow of a doubt? Einstein was a deluded crackpot?
I’ve not so much time now to
I've not so much time now to reply to U - Stevein - and the language walls run the risk to be to get me misunderstood in a such deep and important matter but we all have to remind that a decadent ruling class/society as nowadays cannot more produce Science ( in capital block ), but only chewing again some up-to-date of past's ideologies.
I think that a deeper scientific knowledge of the Universe and its laws as in many others fields will be possible only in a classless society
a such deep and important
a such deep and important matter
I tend to see this as being the case. The demise of organised Christianity does not do away with the fact that many people's behaviour is conditioned by religious concepts. I think it erroneous to think that religion is irrelevant.
Fact is capitalism has survived far longer than Marx would have thought...
anti-Duhring
anti-Duhring
But eternal truths are in an even worse plight in the third, the historical, group of sciences, which study in their historical sequence and in their present resultant state the conditions of human life, social relationships, forms of law and government, with their ideal superstructure in the shape of philosophy, religion, art, etc. In organic nature we are at least dealing with a succession of processes which, so far as our immediate observation is concerned, recur with fair regularity within very wide limits. Organic species have on the whole remained unchanged since the time of Aristotle. In social history, however, the repetition of conditions is the exception and not the rule, once we pass beyond the primitive state of man, the so-called Stone Age; and when such repetitions occur, they never arise under exactly similar circumstances. Such, for example, is the existence of an original common ownership of the land among all civilised peoples, or the way it was dissolved. In the sphere of human history our knowledge is therefore even more backward than in the realm of biology. Furthermore, when by way of exception the inner connection between the social and political forms of existence in any epoch comes to be known, this as a rule occurs only when these forms have already by half outlived themselves and are nearing extinction. Therefore, knowledge is here essentially relative, inasmuch as it is limited to the investigation of interconnections and consequences of certain social and state forms which exist only in a particular epoch and among particular peoples and are by their very nature transitory. Anyone therefore who here sets out to hunt down final and ultimate truths, genuine, absolutely immutable truths, will bring home but little, apart from platitudes and commonplaces of the sorriest kind — for example, that, generally speaking, men cannot live except by labour; that up to the present they for the most part have been divided into rulers and ruled; that Napoleon died on May 5, 1821, and so on.
Engels Anti Duhring, Eternal truths
People name “God” everything they don't understand
People name “God” everything they don't understand
I think people name "God" (or sometimes chaos...) everything they don't understand. In the past there was a god for winds, and one for seas. Now there's a god for the origin of universe. I think it's a way to avoid a real explanation, and to not admit ignorance of modern "wizards", would-be scientists. If some prove exists of an origin in time of the universe, as we know it, well... what has this to do with some kind of intelligent creator? Either nothing existed (not even a God), which is really difficult to accept, for me... or something different existed. I name "Universe" everything exists, so...
No dubt we can feel reality follows an "intelligent design". But this relation has to be reversed, in my opinion. Our intelligence is modelled after reality, both during generations, to increase survival probabilities, and during personal growth and experience. Maybe a stupid example... but we are used to number to ten simply because we have ten fingers.
My two cents ;-)
[[lyrics007.com]]
about the USA This country
This country*
about the USA
This country was not founded on Christianity. "To the extent that ouf Founding Fathers had any religious affiliation at all, it was a tepid embracing of the philosophy of Deism. Deism is the belief that a supernatural power originally created the universe but does not intervene personally into human affairs." - David Mills, Athiest Universe
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Benjamin Franklin
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)
"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense." - Thomas Paine
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition(Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Woods
...and from some of our presidents:
"My earlier view of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln to Judge J. S. Wakefield, following Willie Lincoln's death in 1862
"I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe." - William Howard Taft, in a latter to Yale University
The two documents upon which our country was founded, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, contain not a single word about Christianity, Christian Principles, the Bible or Jesus Christ. Neither is there any mention at all of the Ten Commandments, Heaven, Hell, or being saved.
The Christian Clergy of the Revolutionary period tried again and again to have references to Christianity inserted directly into the U.S. Constitution, but they were refused every time by the Founders.
In 1797 the Unites States ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated by George Washington and signed by John Adams. The treaty declared that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
The national motto was not changed to "In God We Trust" until 1956, 180 years after the founding of our nation. The phrase "under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.
John Lennon...
John Lennon...
worse than Hitler!
I grew up with these lovely tones
Ha Ha!
They ask me why I’m hateful,
They ask me why I'm hateful, why I'm bad.
They tell me I got things they never had.
They tell me go to church and see the light.
Cos the good lord's always right.
So what, so what.
So what if Jesus died on the cross.
So what about the fucker, I don't give a toss.
So what if the master walked on the water.
I don't see him trying to stop the slaughter.
They say I wouldn't have to live from bins.
If I would go along, confess my sins.
They say I shouldn't commit no crime.
Cos Jesus Christ is watching all the time.
So what, so what.
So what if he's always over my shoulder.
I realise the truth as I get older.
I get to see what a con it is.
Because it's my life, mine not his.
Well, they say they're going to send me away.
Said they're going to make me pay.
We're sorry but you got to go.
But you were naughty, you said "No".
So what, so what.
So what if I see through the lies.
So what if the people I despise
Twist my arm and make me work,
I'm no deaf, no fucking jerk.
I'm no spastic lying in the street.
I'm no superstar elite.
I'm just a person, a human being.
NO YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE A PART OF THE MACHINE.
You're a part our machine because we want you to be.
We've got you now and you'll never be free.
We can even have your body after you're dead.
We can take the eyes out of your fucking head.
Yes we'll take them out, use them again.
We can do it you know cos we've got your brain.
We'll crucify you like we crucified him.
We'll make you obey our every whim.
We got the power, the power and the glory.
I've heard that before in a different story.
But the story I heard covered up the truth,
Didn't touch on the actual factual proof.
Didn't say about the bodies in the concentration camps,
Didn't say about the knives underneath the lamps,
Doesn't say that the ovens are still warm,
Doesn't say that this wretched little form
Is a human being who wants to live
But not in the snot and shit they give.
They say that I had better keep quiet
Or they're gonna douse my light.
Jesus Christ can save my life,
But I can always use my knife.
So what, so what, so what, so what, so what, so what, so what, SO WHAT.
Really lovely tones, Steve!
Really lovely tones, Steve! :-)
On the eve of yet another
On the eve of yet another royal wedding here in the UK, and the celebration of all things obsolete, old gods, palaces and paupers, I thought I'd bump the thread.
Better Dead than Wed!
Red Necrophilia, Forum
Red Necrophilia, Forum Edition! (This thread itself is half as old as I am, the last necropost was more than a fifth of my entire lifetime ago. That's an awfully strange feeling…)
If I may be a bit mechanically determinist and reductionist, or even risk being almost Popperian (I swear to "God", almost every time I write "Popper" or any derivation I accidentally type "Pooper[ian]" first [can Freudian slips happen through a keyboard?]), this is the framework most useful to me:
Apply liberal applications of Newton's Flaming Laser Sword to the very posturing of the questions themselves.
Before we can ask: Is there a god? We need to first ask, what does "god" mean? Getting anything even approaching a coherent definition which isn't immediately dismissible (it’s falsifiable, it’s not circular, etc.), let alone an actually valid one, becomes a self-evidently impossible task.
It seems to me that, at least within capitalism, the religious realm of thought has in its content only the various historically conditioned attempts at structuring an amorphous subjective spiritual manifestation of alienation. It is the last remnant of the "material human community", existing in an inverted, ideal form, the mental resistance against the abstraction of the individual. Most people's responses show this pretty blatantly from "church gives me a sense of belonging and community", to "god is a feeling of belonging", to the more-and-more common and so much more explicit Dutch Atheist Protestant “God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you', and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God" en.wikipedia.org
So God=[insert incoherent amalgamation of cumulative cognitive byproducts of alienation here]
If examining the concept in isolation, "God" might as well mean "UY324IDBdusyf3679897hdidbschxgEsx". To suppose that it is because we can't understand those kinds of things, etc., is to implicitly accept many absurd assumptions and skip over many hopelessly confused and empty questions.
I find the positions termed "igtheism" and "theological non-cognitivist" closest to what I'm trying to describe. To ask if "God(s)" exist is to already give the "idea" too much credit. I don't think the term means anything literally, nor do I think that even asking what it means outside of a particular historical context is of any use. It's a cognitive fuzz devoid of any lexical content. The more abstract and all-unifying and consuming (subsuming?) (the more "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, unitary, etc. [applying to metaphysical, symbolic, and explicitly human-power originating expressions] etc.") the attributes of this thought-blob, the more it is easily identifiable as simply the projection of what we aren't, an unwinnable spiritual search of human powers lost long ago.
(Relevant to earlier points, I just read in the wiki article on "igtheism" that the term was first used by a rabbi who was instrumental in the establishment of Humanistic Judaism [completely coincidentally - I think {unless God did it} - I was bar mitzvahed through "Kol Shalom", a congregation of the Society for Humanistic Judaism, the organization the aforementioned rabbi founded]).