Are you atheist?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Uh-huh.

Was responding to Mistermack's post.

And I was responding to yours, to further clarify my position.

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And I was responding to yours,

Not really.... but I'm used to that.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Not really.... but I'm used to that.

Well, if you insist on snipping the sentence "to further clarify my position.", then I can only conclude, your misunderstandings are deliberate, in order to slip the punch/question perhaps...

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"to further clarify my position."

I understand that your are attempting "to further clarify your position", but your position has no evident relation to the statement I made regarding 20th century secularism; therefore I cannot regard it as a response. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Peterkin said:

I understand that your are attempting "to further clarify your position", but your position has no evident relation to the statement I made regarding 20th century secularism; therefore I cannot regard it as a response. 

Rito.

[Peterkin]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

in order to slip the punch/question perhaps.

I don't even know what this means.

[dimreepr]

"And those who were seen dancing, were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't even know what this means.

It means, religion's not your enemy, "THEY" are...

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It means, religion's not your enemy,

in order to slip the punch/question perhaps = religion is not your enemy

Not a translation that springs automatically to mind. Thank you.

I actually knew that, back when I was attempting to explore the various sources and benefits of religious belief. Since then, the subject has shifted in several directions. In none of those areas am I directly involved with a religion, as either friend or foe, either beneficiary or victim, either advocate or denouncer. I find the phenomenon of spirituality, its historical ritualization, co-optation and institutionalization interesting, but have no personal use for it. 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"THEY" are...

Again with the post-cryptic! I have no known enemies. 

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Again with the post-cryptic! I have no known enemies. 

Indeed, which makes you so sure that your enemies don't exist, at least on an intellectual level...

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, which makes you so sure that your enemies don't exist, at least on an intellectual level...

I didn't say I was sure; I said no known enemies. 

Does this have any connection to the topic?

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Does this have any connection to the topic?

Indeed, see above...

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, see above...

Ceiling, cobweb, light-fixture, no God...

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Ceiling, cobweb, light-fixture, no God...

What's God got to do with it?

I'm an atheist, you don't need a God to understand religion.

[dimreepr]

OK, let me try again, from the beginning; Clearly Marx recognised that religion teaches contentment "the opiate of the people" and suggested that is a bad thing, as in it insidiously undermines society and promotes apathy in the face of a government that feeds off them.

I disagree with his interpretation of what contentment, and by extention religion, means to society; it's certainly no stretch to say "Contented people = peaceful people" and if we extend the drug analogy, some drugs are more insidious than other's; for instance, a drunken bloke slam's down his pint and says "right, you're going down" because he doesn't agree with a perfectly reasonable thought; meanwhile a stoned bloke says "na, your alright mate, you wanna toke".

Bearing in mind, how the Russian revolution worked out; was it better before or after, and for whom?

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

'm an atheist, you don't need a God to understand religion.

 I know that. It is to that end I have studied anthropology, mythology and - to a limited degree - the history of the Christian churches. It's trying to explain what I understand about religion that leads into a quagmire.

Besides understanding, there is also attitude and taste. I prefer informed cognition to befuddled 'contentment', and I do not confuse living near a cave, a dumpster and a folly with living well. 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Clearly Marx recognised that religion teaches contentment "the opiate of the people"

Clearly, he explicitly stated that contentment had no part in the people's oppression. 

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

suggested that is a bad thing, as in it insidiously undermines society and promotes apathy in the face of a government that feeds off them

He did not suggest any such thing. He laid out the mechanisms of industrial capitalism, in which both government and religious institutions were instrumental in preserving the imbalance of power and material wealth and subjugating the masses through fraud and coercion.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I disagree with his interpretation of what contentment, and by extention religion, means to society;

You're quite welcome to do so, but I wish it were done with sound textual and contextual understanding. In any case, neither your opinion nor mine affects what Marx wrote 180 years ago, in England. It's a reference, not a gospel. 

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Bearing in mind, how the Russian revolution worked out; was it better before or after, and for whom?

That has no bearing on Marxist analysis.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Besides understanding, there is also attitude and taste. I prefer informed cognition to befuddled 'contentment', and I do not confuse living near a cave, a dumpster and a folly with living well. 

 

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

On 8/28/2022 at 12:20 PM, dimreepr said:

Bearing in mind, how the Russian revolution worked out; was it better before or after, and for whom?

That has no bearing on Marxist analysis.

Really, why not?

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You're quite welcome to do so, but I wish it were done with sound textual and contextual understanding. In any case, neither your opinion nor mine affects what Marx wrote 180 years ago, in England. It's a reference, not a gospel. 

Much like the American constitution, it made sense at the time and from his perspective...

One day, a cave will seem like heaven and tomorrow we'll forget it's comfort...

[Peterkin]

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Really, why not?

Because neither did the French Revolution.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Because neither did the French Revolution.

One day we'll find out...

[Peterkin]

Just now, dimreepr said:

One day we'll find out...

Good luck!

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Good luck!

And round we go...

[we2]

There was a time when I was an Atheist, however, I had an experience that laid me to question creation and I started studying which led to my belief in God today.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, we2 said:

There was a time when I was an Atheist, however, I had an experience that laid me to question creation and I started studying which led to my belief in God today.

Brain injury?

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, we2 said:

I started studying which led to my belief in God today.

What on earth did you study?

[Moontanman]

9 hours ago, we2 said:

There was a time when I was an Atheist, however, I had an experience that laid me to question creation and I started studying which led to my belief in God today.

I studied the bible and other religious works to come to the conclusion that lack of belief is the only reasonable stance to take on the issue of gods.