[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That is what his buddies call him. Big Ben.[/quote]
lol!
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
I disagree with the statement that the Japanese suicide Pilots did it only because they were told to. They were lead to believe that they were to go to a better place after life and were being Martyred. They were only taught how to take off…would you send your sons to do this knowing they were to never return???
Plz correct me if I"m wrong, i have limited knowledge on the pilots, and have said it as i understand it…
Where is it that says Communism isn’t a form of religion.
It is one person taking total power over his “Followers”
They do it for the “Emperor” not the cause, they do it because he has said it must be so…in my eyes no different to following “Gods Word”.
The pilots were not led to believe that they were going to a better place. Your thinking of martyrs of Christianity and Islam. The pilots were told it was for the better of the nation, and their sacrifice in life suceeded with the thought of Japanese victory.
And are you really saying communism is a religion? If you have any history in socialism, you would known that Marx stated “religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand”, and “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”. Now does communism in any way sound like it endorses traditional religious views? No, not at all.
Communism is defined by wiki as, “Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production”. In that definition does it state an ultimate being or high power should be worshiped in any way or form? Communism is a economic society structure.
You said communism is when one takes control of many. This is not the case at all, communism theortically is powered by equality so that everyone is equal and no one rules them all.
Your original topic was on how religion caused people to behave in a negative way, and i replied with saying people would be taken advantage of if there wasn’t or was a religion, for example communism and the hitler comments. By you agreeing that communism does take advantage of people, even though you are classifying communism as a religion, you are strengthening my argument. THERE doesn’t have to be a higher power to blame for people doing negative actions, people will be taken advantage in all different situations. To say religion is to blame is pretty ignorant.
BTW i am in know way a communist or fundamental religious individual, far from each actually, just trying to state the facts. Only saying this since im new to the board and i really don’t want to be labeled into something i don’t believe in aka communism.
[/quote]
i stand corrected
No, I was merely pointing out the commonalities of the 2. It is hard to explain in my broken stream of thought. ( I am at work and shouldn’t even be on here)
No it doesn’t, but do you know of any major communist states in world history that hasn’t had a figurehead?
My point, “In theory”…however has it ever actually been that way when seen from the outside.
I merely put forward the question “is communism any different to religion” i never said it was a religion.
No race, tribe, culture or any gathering of people has ever formed on its own, That i can think of at this time, without the help of some leading influence.
Religion was merely one of these examples that has been around and taken hold of the masses.
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
vroom wrote:
Do you really think there wouldn’t be suicide bombers if there wasn’t religion or mass suicides in the name of god? Those people that perform or order those acts aren’t the majority of religious people, is going into politics is bad because certain politicians abuse their powers?
This might fly in the face of the thoughts of some, but without some type of “higher power” to condone it, it is difficult to justify putting so many people in the way of pain and suffering.
Having a inarguable all-encompassing authority require it of you is a way to bypass our own built in sense of right and wrong.
My point was that suicide bombers and mass suicide would for example still continue if there wasn’t religion. And by higher power I’m pretty positive you meant god of some sort.
So assuming you were disagreeing with my point (please correct me if I’m wrong), but when the germans were ordered to kill jews, homosexuals, catholics, the disabled, ect, was there a higher power condoning it? Nope, it was hitler, who for one did not only condemn religion, but spirituality in itself.
Also when the Jap. suicided their planes into american war ships was there a higher power condoning it? Nope, it was Communist Japan, and everybody knows one of the core beliefs to communism is the lack of religion, but loyalty for the state. Thus proving my point that such actions would occur if there wasn’t a religion to blame or not.
[/quote]
Communist Japan?
Collectivist yes, communist most definitely not.
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
And are you really saying communism is a religion? If you have any history in socialism, you would known that Marx stated “religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand”, and “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”. Now does communism in any way sound like it endorses traditional religious views? No, not at all.
[/quote]
Communism is eschatological:
It works towards a paradise, human destiny is fixed and inevitable.
It is manichaeic:
Good fights bad, or rather the inevitable fights those who work against it.
It is gnostic:
At least insofar as the world will be saved by special knowledge that was revealed to a savior, redeemer, let´s face it a messiah.
Communism has holy scriptures, “Das Kapital”, the communist manifesto, it has prophets, Marx, Engels, it has saints like Lenin, sinners, like Trotzki.
Furthermore, ideas like nationalism and a little later fascism and communism picked up steam when other collectivist ideas that conveyed some common goal or purpose to the masses declined, or in other words when religions were no longer universal truths which is exactly what Nietzsche meant with " God is dead and you killed him".
Then, the whole idea that Marx was unable to create a religion just because he was against religion is highly questionable and what was COMMUNISM IF NOT OPIUM FOR THE PEOPLE?
So whether you want to call communism a religion or not is up to you, but recognize that it has a lot in common with religions and that it fills the void that was left by a religion in decline and that it works to a large degree with the same meta-ideas and through the same mechanisms.
[quote]orion wrote:
Communism is eschatological:
It works towards a paradise, human destiny is fixed and inevitable.
It is manichaeic:
Good fights bad, or rather the inevitable fights those who work against it.
It is gnostic:
At least insofar as the world will be saved by special knowledge that was revealed to a savior, redeemer, let´s face it a messiah.
Communism has holy scriptures, “Das Kapital”, the communist manifesto, it has prophets, Marx, Engels, it has saints like Lenin, sinners, like Trotzki.
Furthermore, ideas like nationalism and a little later fascism and communism picked up steam when other collectivist ideas that conveyed some common goal or purpose to the masses declined, or in other words when religions were no longer universal truths which is exactly what Nietzsche meant with " God is dead and you killed him".
Then, the whole idea that Marx was unable to create a religion just because he was against religion is highly questionable and what was COMMUNISM IF NOT OPIUM FOR THE PEOPLE?
So whether you want to call communism a religion or not is up to you, but recognize that it has a lot in common with religions and that it fills the void that was left by a religion in decline and that it works to a large degree with the same meta-ideas and through the same mechanisms.
[/quote]
^^ very good post.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I’ll take that as a “no.” If you haven’t read him, don’t judge him. Fair enough?[/quote]
The link above leads to St. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments concerning usury. His reasoning is terrible, particularly with regard to objection
- Deuteronomy says usury is allowed, Psalms says it is not. St. Thomas decides that it’s a sin.
I happen to think the bible is an antiquated, self-contradictory book that promotes cruelty and absurdity:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
As such, I can’t respect any philosopher who attempts to elevate “Supernatural revelation” to the same level as observable verifiable facts.
[quote]orion wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
And are you really saying communism is a religion? If you have any history in socialism, you would known that Marx stated “religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand”, and "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people". Now does communism in any way sound like it endorses traditional religious views? No, not at all.
Communism is eschatological:
It works towards a paradise, human destiny is fixed and inevitable.
It is manichaeic:
Good fights bad, or rather the inevitable fights those who work against it.
It is gnostic:
At least insofar as the world will be saved by special knowledge that was revealed to a savior, redeemer, let´s face it a messiah.
Communism has holy scriptures, “Das Kapital”, the communist manifesto, it has prophets, Marx, Engels, it has saints like Lenin, sinners, like Trotzki.
Furthermore, ideas like nationalism and a little later fascism and communism picked up steam when other collectivist ideas that conveyed some common goal or purpose to the masses declined, or in other words when religions were no longer universal truths which is exactly what Nietzsche meant with " God is dead and you killed him".
Then, the whole idea that Marx was unable to create a religion just because he was against religion is highly questionable and what was COMMUNISM IF NOT OPIUM FOR THE PEOPLE?
So whether you want to call communism a religion or not is up to you, but recognize that it has a lot in common with religions and that it fills the void that was left by a religion in decline and that it works to a large degree with the same meta-ideas and through the same mechanisms.
[/quote]
Nice…confusing, but nicely stated…
[quote]orion wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
And are you really saying communism is a religion? If you have any history in socialism, you would known that Marx stated “religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand”, and "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people". Now does communism in any way sound like it endorses traditional religious views? No, not at all.
Communism is eschatological:
It works towards a paradise, human destiny is fixed and inevitable.
It is manichaeic:
Good fights bad, or rather the inevitable fights those who work against it.
It is gnostic:
At least insofar as the world will be saved by special knowledge that was revealed to a savior, redeemer, let´s face it a messiah.
Communism has holy scriptures, “Das Kapital”, the communist manifesto, it has prophets, Marx, Engels, it has saints like Lenin, sinners, like Trotzki.
Furthermore, ideas like nationalism and a little later fascism and communism picked up steam when other collectivist ideas that conveyed some common goal or purpose to the masses declined, or in other words when religions were no longer universal truths which is exactly what Nietzsche meant with " God is dead and you killed him".
Then, the whole idea that Marx was unable to create a religion just because he was against religion is highly questionable and what was COMMUNISM IF NOT OPIUM FOR THE PEOPLE?
So whether you want to call communism a religion or not is up to you, but recognize that it has a lot in common with religions and that it fills the void that was left by a religion in decline and that it works to a large degree with the same meta-ideas and through the same mechanisms.
[/quote]
How is communism eschatological? You even said human destiny is fixed and inevitable; if so how can you work towards an end? You can’t work for something that will happen anyway. The statement contradicts itself.
Just because your drawing connections between communism and religion, doesn’t make it a religion. To the point of marx being like a prophet, a major difference when comparing prophets of religion and marx is that, marx never claimed to be a prophet, unlike Jesus, Buddah, Mohammad, ect.
Also its quite easy to compare structured bases like communism to religion. For example take Walmart, Prophet = Sam Walton, Saint = Mario ??? (the main guy in Canada), Sinner = employee’s who steal, break the rules, ect., holy doctrine = company policy, golden rule = “respect the individual”, teachings = capitalistic and life skills in marketing, economics, and general business.
Again, just because you can losely tie the same structure as religion to another organization doesn’t make it a religion.
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
orion wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
And are you really saying communism is a religion? If you have any history in socialism, you would known that Marx stated “religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand”, and "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people". Now does communism in any way sound like it endorses traditional religious views? No, not at all.
Communism is eschatological:
It works towards a paradise, human destiny is fixed and inevitable.
It is manichaeic:
Good fights bad, or rather the inevitable fights those who work against it.
It is gnostic:
At least insofar as the world will be saved by special knowledge that was revealed to a savior, redeemer, let´s face it a messiah.
Communism has holy scriptures, “Das Kapital”, the communist manifesto, it has prophets, Marx, Engels, it has saints like Lenin, sinners, like Trotzki.
Furthermore, ideas like nationalism and a little later fascism and communism picked up steam when other collectivist ideas that conveyed some common goal or purpose to the masses declined, or in other words when religions were no longer universal truths which is exactly what Nietzsche meant with " God is dead and you killed him".
Then, the whole idea that Marx was unable to create a religion just because he was against religion is highly questionable and what was COMMUNISM IF NOT OPIUM FOR THE PEOPLE?
So whether you want to call communism a religion or not is up to you, but recognize that it has a lot in common with religions and that it fills the void that was left by a religion in decline and that it works to a large degree with the same meta-ideas and through the same mechanisms.
How is communism eschatological? You even said human destiny is fixed and inevitable; if so how can you work towards an end? You can’t work for something that will happen anyway. The statement contradicts itself.
Just because your drawing connections between communism and religion, doesn’t make it a religion. To the point of marx being like a prophet, a major difference when comparing prophets of religion and marx is that, marx never claimed to be a prophet, unlike Jesus, Buddah, Mohammad, ect.
Also its quite easy to compare structured bases like communism to religion. For example take Walmart, Prophet = Sam Walton, Saint = Mario ??? (the main guy in Canada), Sinner = employee’s who steal, break the rules, ect., holy doctrine = company policy, golden rule = “respect the individual”, teachings = capitalistic and life skills in marketing, economics, and general business.
Again, just because you can losely tie the same structure as religion to another organization doesn’t make it a religion.
[/quote]
A lot of religions share the view that the ultimate outcome of mankind and history is fixed and still people worked towards their own salvation.
Some religions even teach that your destiny is already fixed and that you have a free will and see no problem with that.
You also might want to look at the calvinist roots of ideas like manifest destiny.
If you really, truly, want to argue that something could not possibly be a religion or religion-like, because it makes no sense under closer scrutiny, be my guest.
Then, we do not know if Jesus ever claimed to be a prophet or not, the Bible is an unreliable, heavily edited piece of work, Budda however never claimed to be a prophet, not even according to Buddhist scriptures.
Marx did however claim that he revealed the ultimate course of human destiny with scientific accuracy.
What does that make him if not a prophet?
I also did not make loose comparisons. Religions lost their uniting power and got replaced with something else.
We both know that it was not Wal-mart.
Maybe the show-trials under Stalin convince you. Those people were basically accused of heresy, of failing to interpret Marxism/Leninism correctly. They were a “Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites”.
They were punished accordingly.
[quote]orion wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
orion wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
A lot of religions share the view that the ultimate outcome of mankind and history is fixed and still people worked towards their own salvation.
Some religions even teach that your destiny is already fixed and that you have a free will and see no problem with that.
You also might want to look at the calvinist roots of ideas like manifest destiny.
If you really, truly, want to argue that something could not possibly be a religion or religion-like, because it makes no sense under closer scrutiny, be my guest.
Then, we do not know if Jesus ever claimed to be a prophet or not, the Bible is an unreliable, heavily edited piece of work, Budda however never claimed to be a prophet, not even according to Buddhist scriptures.
Marx did however claim that he revealed the ultimate course of human destiny with scientific accuracy.
What does that make him if not a prophet?
I also did not make loose comparisons. Religions lost their uniting power and got replaced with something else.
We both know that it was not Wal-mart.
Maybe the show-trials under Stalin convince you. Those people were basically accused of heresy, of failing to interpret Marxism/Leninism correctly. They were a “Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites”.
They were punished accordingly.
[/quote]
Yes alot of religions claim to be fixed, and yes this makes them eschatological, but not communism. For communism you have to work towards that “end”, and if the right paths aren’t taken then the “economic paradise?” won’t be a achieved.
Different from religion eschatological ideas because most consist of dates that are determined no matter what path is taken, “the day of rapture”, “day of judgement”, days that if you followed the teachings correctly or not, will still come.
Jesus did claim to be a prophet from the best of my knowledge, saying he is the son of god. Hopefully someone with some better religious back ground could verify it, or maybe someone on here with a islamic background, since i do believe islam percieves just as a prophet as well, just not a messiah.
Also i do consider buddah to claim to be a prophet since after his enlightenment he said he was visited by a spirit for him to be the one to be the one who passes on his knowledge and what not. Again i’m no monk so if that information is wrong, feel free to correct me.
And no i don’t think that made marx a prophet because he revealed the ultimate course of human destiny with scientific accuracy without a divine revelation like other self-proclaimed or generally accepted appointed prophets.
For the trials, it still isnt comparable to a religion, just were killed for not following a leader. Being killed for not following your leaders teachings does not make it a religion, it makes a rough and tough society (take that as you will lol haah).
Btw i wasn’t comparing walmart to communism, i was showing how easy it is to make ties such as you did, with common day examples.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
From The New York Review of Books
[i]There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists�??most of whom are not scientists�??holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.[/i]
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.
I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.
I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.
I challenge you to re-read what you have just written here and apply it to humanistic ideals such as science. The fact is that many people have been hurt in the name of science and that has been used as an excuse, just like religion. I.e. the Tuskegee experiments: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia
Religious people have faith in God, etc and hopefully that governs their lives and actions. The same is said for humanists who believe that man is the highest authority and typically look to science to answer their questions of life etc.
So both religion and science operate from faith or belief and both have done damage to others.
No denying it, and that would make a thread in it’s self.
Science has definitely got a religious structure to it. But, do you not think that because science is an ever evolving thing that it differs in so many way to the static and constantly regurgitated theories of religion?
That’s a good point. But science is not all that open to new ideas either. Just looking at history will show that. We just happen to live in a time where people are somewhat more open to new ideas. That is why science is able to move at a faster pace. But that wasn’t always the case.
And even today most of science is slow (IMO) to accept new concepts, which is funny to me because most of science is based on theory, not repeatable demonstration. So what they are arguing about is really just someone’s ideas vs someone else’s ideas, just like religion.
Well said, but, the science we see in the general media is usually something to appease the masses. The science that is being done by students or other scientist with years of unrecognized study and is being done through the want to solve a problem they feel can be solved will always be there.
These people do it because they want to continue the growth of what can be achieved and take it as far as they are able. That is then a platform for another to continue their work in a direction that the preceding person never even thought possible. This is purely for the advancement of the needs they feel are required.
You are right in your comment about science being more open now. Again though it has been shown through history that anyone who worked in the field of science was persecuted for their actions by the more powerful religious sects that ruled the masses.
Hundreds of years ago you were thought of as a witch and put to death, all because you went against the teachings of God.
I think you have a romanticized view of the scientific community. Most motives are not as pure as you are asserting. Most fall prey to the company that is sponsoring the research and as such do not strictly adhere to 100% ethical practices in their research. So it’s quite more self-serving than you might imagine.
Fair statement about the way i wrote my response. I do however know that it isn’t all “Disney” science out there. A high majority of things have been done in the name of science that are reprehensible. This however doesn’t change the fact that what is done is done in a practical sense where the result are obvious. Whether for good or bad. They are not theoretical, they exist, they are real.
Your comment about ethics and self serving can just as easily be put to religion…extremist’s are totally self serving and from an outsiders view very unethical. By extremist, I mean those that translate the readings of their belief to the full extent of it’s meanings or twist it to suit a cause.[/quote]
Yes, I would agree with that. I would also say that “religion” is a totally different concept than the God or higher power that it is supposed to support or represent.
So to be clear, religion is organized by man, and as such, has many of the same flaws. That is why many believe in God or a higher power, but not in how most have tried to define him or speak for him.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
From The New York Review of Books
[i]There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists�??most of whom are not scientists�??holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.[/i][/quote]
Good post…
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.
I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.
I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.
I challenge you to re-read what you have just written here and apply it to humanistic ideals such as science. The fact is that many people have been hurt in the name of science and that has been used as an excuse, just like religion. I.e. the Tuskegee experiments: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia
Religious people have faith in God, etc and hopefully that governs their lives and actions. The same is said for humanists who believe that man is the highest authority and typically look to science to answer their questions of life etc.
So both religion and science operate from faith or belief and both have done damage to others.
No denying it, and that would make a thread in it’s self.
Science has definitely got a religious structure to it. But, do you not think that because science is an ever evolving thing that it differs in so many way to the static and constantly regurgitated theories of religion?
That’s a good point. But science is not all that open to new ideas either. Just looking at history will show that. We just happen to live in a time where people are somewhat more open to new ideas. That is why science is able to move at a faster pace. But that wasn’t always the case.
And even today most of science is slow (IMO) to accept new concepts, which is funny to me because most of science is based on theory, not repeatable demonstration. So what they are arguing about is really just someone’s ideas vs someone else’s ideas, just like religion.
Well said, but, the science we see in the general media is usually something to appease the masses. The science that is being done by students or other scientist with years of unrecognized study and is being done through the want to solve a problem they feel can be solved will always be there.
These people do it because they want to continue the growth of what can be achieved and take it as far as they are able. That is then a platform for another to continue their work in a direction that the preceding person never even thought possible. This is purely for the advancement of the needs they feel are required.
You are right in your comment about science being more open now. Again though it has been shown through history that anyone who worked in the field of science was persecuted for their actions by the more powerful religious sects that ruled the masses.
Hundreds of years ago you were thought of as a witch and put to death, all because you went against the teachings of God.
I think you have a romanticized view of the scientific community. Most motives are not as pure as you are asserting. Most fall prey to the company that is sponsoring the research and as such do not strictly adhere to 100% ethical practices in their research. So it’s quite more self-serving than you might imagine.
Fair statement about the way i wrote my response. I do however know that it isn’t all “Disney” science out there. A high majority of things have been done in the name of science that are reprehensible. This however doesn’t change the fact that what is done is done in a practical sense where the result are obvious. Whether for good or bad. They are not theoretical, they exist, they are real.
Your comment about ethics and self serving can just as easily be put to religion…extremist’s are totally self serving and from an outsiders view very unethical. By extremist, I mean those that translate the readings of their belief to the full extent of it’s meanings or twist it to suit a cause.
Yes, I would agree with that. I would also say that “religion” is a totally different concept than the God or higher power that it is supposed to support or represent.
So to be clear, religion is organized by man, and as such, has many of the same flaws. That is why many believe in God or a higher power, but not in how most have tried to define him or speak for him.
[/quote]
Well put…that pretty much sums it up to me
I’m enjoying reading this thread… but could you guys not quote back like three people?
A little post editing would be appreciated.
Sorry …it has been ordained that this is how it must be
(looking down nose at others)
Methinks it’s the secularists improvising their own rules 
crosses himself
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
orion wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
orion wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
A lot of religions share the view that the ultimate outcome of mankind and history is fixed and still people worked towards their own salvation.
Some religions even teach that your destiny is already fixed and that you have a free will and see no problem with that.
You also might want to look at the calvinist roots of ideas like manifest destiny.
If you really, truly, want to argue that something could not possibly be a religion or religion-like, because it makes no sense under closer scrutiny, be my guest.
Then, we do not know if Jesus ever claimed to be a prophet or not, the Bible is an unreliable, heavily edited piece of work, Budda however never claimed to be a prophet, not even according to Buddhist scriptures.
Marx did however claim that he revealed the ultimate course of human destiny with scientific accuracy.
What does that make him if not a prophet?
I also did not make loose comparisons. Religions lost their uniting power and got replaced with something else.
We both know that it was not Wal-mart.
Maybe the show-trials under Stalin convince you. Those people were basically accused of heresy, of failing to interpret Marxism/Leninism correctly. They were a “Bloc of Rightists and Trotskyites”.
They were punished accordingly.
Yes alot of religions claim to be fixed, and yes this makes them eschatological, but not communism. For communism you have to work towards that “end”, and if the right paths aren’t taken then the “economic paradise?” won’t be a achieved.
Different from religion eschatological ideas because most consist of dates that are determined no matter what path is taken, “the day of rapture”, “day of judgement”, days that if you followed the teachings correctly or not, will still come.
Jesus did claim to be a prophet from the best of my knowledge, saying he is the son of god. Hopefully someone with some better religious back ground could verify it, or maybe someone on here with a islamic background, since i do believe islam percieves just as a prophet as well, just not a messiah.
Also i do consider buddah to claim to be a prophet since after his enlightenment he said he was visited by a spirit for him to be the one to be the one who passes on his knowledge and what not. Again i’m no monk so if that information is wrong, feel free to correct me.
And no i don’t think that made marx a prophet because he revealed the ultimate course of human destiny with scientific accuracy without a divine revelation like other self-proclaimed or generally accepted appointed prophets.
For the trials, it still isnt comparable to a religion, just were killed for not following a leader. Being killed for not following your leaders teachings does not make it a religion, it makes a rough and tough society (take that as you will lol haah).
Btw i wasn’t comparing walmart to communism, i was showing how easy it is to make ties such as you did, with common day examples.[/quote]
What made Marx’s version of communism distinctive was his bold claim that it embraced a “scientific” worldview and the fact that he placed his analysis of communism in a much broader context. The latter reflected his major preoccupation in life, which was the analysis of contemporary society and of trends in its development. He engaged with the most significant intellectual movements of his age. In addition to French socialism, he brought German philosophy, British political economy, and above all the new methods and language of the natural sciences into a brilliant synthesis. Marx described the result as “scientific socialism,” which he distinguished from the “utopianism” of his many forebears and rivals. His aim was to unify theory and practice, to marry the analysis of society to political action. This was what made Marx and Engels’s analysis of the coming communist society so powerful: their brand of socialism would succeed not because of mere striving and wishful thinking but because it was based in scientific study and represented the culmination of an inevitable trend in the modern world. Accordingly the Manifesto contained little discussion of political organization or revolutionary activity. Instead it presented communism as the direct product of a process of historical change involving a class struggle that was rooted in the effects of industrialization. The working class was destined to become a majority in society, and it would be bound, in the face of obvious economic oppression, to demand change, which could only be achieved by seizing economic and political power. In this view societies passed through great epochs: as feudalism had given way to capitalism, so capitalism would give way to communism. It was this faith in the inevitability of communism, as predicted by scientific socialism, that was Marx’s great contribution. From it the possibility of communism as a political ideology in its own right and as a secular religion could be fashioned, but this did not happen immediately.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/8758/Communism-in-Europe-Karl-Marx-Origins-Modern-Communism.html
One strength of the Communist system …is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
- Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years
[quote]orion wrote:
One strength of the Communist system …is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
- Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years[/quote]
And capitalism doesn’t share characteristics with religion? And “religious emotions” (what emotions are soley experienced when one is religious, by the way?) can’t be found among secular capitalists?
Edit: This seems like a cop out to pull “atheism with force” (state atheism) out of the “atrocities and oppression committed in the name of atheism” category. Sort of blaming religion even for the excesses of atheism/secularism.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
One strength of the Communist system …is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
- Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years
And capitalism doesn’t share characteristics with religion? And “religious emotions” (what emotions are soley experienced when one is religious, by the way?) can’t be found among secular capitalists?
Edit: This seems like a cop out to pull “atheism with force” (state atheism) out of the “atrocities and oppression committed in the name of atheism” category. Sort of blaming religion even for the excesses of atheism/secularism.[/quote]
I do not need to pull out anything out of the “atrocities and oppression committed in the name of atheism” category, because there is very little in it.
Neither the Nazi nor the communists did much in the “name of atheism”, they just furthered their agendas by fighting other ideologies and religions just happened to be among them.
Could you compare religions to capitalism or vice-versa?
Sure.
Insofar as capitalism and religions seem to form or re-form whenever they are not prevented by excessive force (and sometimes even then) they seem to be an organic result of human interaction.
Other than that I see no real similarities, there is nothing supernatural about capitalism.