Caley McKibbin: The urge to pitch the sales schtick to talk to yourself every night is so strong and unrelenting that any subject is a candidate, however unlikely it may seem, for some kind of essay on how only Bible thumpers can have anything to contribute or have any reason to. Maybe nearly every serious believer being an annoying snob is why "liberals" (really anyone not religious) hate religion. Even some people who believe in a god hate religion. ...Oh, then they turn around and play the hard-done-by victim routine, croon on and on about how 3vil, devilsent conspiring forces are out to get them and how they don't get a fair shake in secular societies like science, etc. Then they run off and sign up on countless Christian singles websites so they don't have to think the person they share every day with for the rest of their lives is going to burn in agony for eternity, so they can find someone who can stand their sanctimonious lectures on everything little thing. Now, to make this topical, which is more likely reason for why anyone would ever have hated religion: a) some ivory tower philosophy that 0.01% of people have heard. b) the scary, creepy, harassing character of it.
The urge to pitch the sales schtick to talk to yourself every night is so strong and unrelenting that any subject is a candidate, however unlikely it may seem, for some kind of essay on how only Bible thumpers can have anything to contribute or have any reason to. Maybe nearly every serious believer being an annoying snob is why "liberals" (really anyone not religious) hate religion. Even some people who believe in a god hate religion.
...Oh, then they turn around and play the hard-done-by victim routine, croon on and on about how 3vil, devilsent conspiring forces are out to get them and how they don't get a fair shake in secular societies like science, etc. Then they run off and sign up on countless Christian singles websites so they don't have to think the person they share every day with for the rest of their lives is going to burn in agony for eternity, so they can find someone who can stand their sanctimonious lectures on everything little thing.
Now, to make this topical, which is more likely reason for why anyone would ever have hated religion:
a) some ivory tower philosophy that 0.01% of people have heard.
b) the scary, creepy, harassing character of it.
You sound like a Hegelian with your bullshit dialectics.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
John Ess: There's no such thing as natural rights or God. There are no objective rights. But you can work out what is ethical or not, through reasoning. People get to God through secular reasoning; that reasoning is simply faulty. Rights are a statist concept; it is a means of a trade off... your sovereignty for the ability to petition for safety and empty promises. And since the state must create a monopoly to do so, we know from economics their product will be crap. Marxists hate religion because they see it as a means of keeping the powerless down and accepting of their fate in life. Christianity does this through telling the poor they will inherit the earth. Buddhism through reincarnation myths (misfortune comes from a past life). Hinduism through caste system mythology. Etc. Etc. etc. Liberals generally only hate Christianity, if they hate any religions. And that's because they think conservatives are Christian. Generally, liberals will find some way to deconstruct Christianity to make more to their liking. Michael Moore even has a pathetic segment of Catholic priests calling capitalism corrupt (without any irony). Conservative Christians (even the war-making kind) can fit to their liking. And then all is well. They read what they want to read into it.
There's no such thing as natural rights or God.
There are no objective rights. But you can work out what is ethical or not, through reasoning.
People get to God through secular reasoning; that reasoning is simply faulty.
Rights are a statist concept; it is a means of a trade off... your sovereignty for the ability to petition for safety and empty promises. And since the state must create a monopoly to do so, we know from economics their product will be crap.
Marxists hate religion because they see it as a means of keeping the powerless down and accepting of their fate in life. Christianity does this through telling the poor they will inherit the earth. Buddhism through reincarnation myths (misfortune comes from a past life). Hinduism through caste system mythology. Etc. Etc. etc.
Liberals generally only hate Christianity, if they hate any religions. And that's because they think conservatives are Christian. Generally, liberals will find some way to deconstruct Christianity to make more to their liking. Michael Moore even has a pathetic segment of Catholic priests calling capitalism corrupt (without any irony). Conservative Christians (even the war-making kind) can fit to their liking. And then all is well. They read what they want to read into it.
Excellent comment
John Ess:Marxists hate religion because they see it as a means of keeping the powerless down and accepting of their fate in life.
Yes, because Marxists want to empower the poor. Marx openly calls for the extermination of what he calls "parasites," i.e., the poor, weak, and stupid (Polish, Serbs, Gypsies), along side the "rentiers" and arbitragers.
John Ess:Liberals generally only hate Christianity, if they hate any religions. And that's because they think conservatives are Christian.
The "liberals" (socialists) hatred of religion predates American conservatism, the neocons/paleocons, supply-siders, ect. So this explanation has to be dismissed.
There's a reason why Liberals hold onto abstract philosophy and/or philosophies which deny the possibility of absolute truth, be it post-modernism, relativism, pragmatism, Hegel/Marx, or whatever is in fashion. They attack reason and truth (natural law and deduction) because the facts explode their arguments.
Esuric:Yes, because Marxists want to empower the poor. Marx openly calls for the extermination of what he calls "parasites," i.e., the poor, weak, and stupid (Polish, Serbs, Gypsies), along side the "rentiers" and arbitragers.
That is interesting, where did you pick that up? I am intrigued
Esuric:The "liberals" (socialists) hatred of religion predates American conservatism, the neocons/paleocons, supply-siders, ect. So this explanation has to be dismissed.
The clash between socialism and religion varies from time to time. Communism started off being post-millennial Christians. You also have English socialists using references of God and even one who tries to deduce socialism from natural rights. It is pretty interest. His name was Thomas Spence and he wanted parish run socialism according to God's natural law. I think with Marx, the use of Christianity within Socialism died out. There are still Christian Socialists out there though I'm sure.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Esuric: John Ess:Marxists hate religion because they see it as a means of keeping the powerless down and accepting of their fate in life. Yes, because Marxists want to empower the poor. Marx openly calls for the extermination of what he calls "parasites," i.e., the poor, weak, and stupid (Polish, Serbs, Gypsies), along side the "rentiers" and arbitragers. John Ess:Liberals generally only hate Christianity, if they hate any religions. And that's because they think conservatives are Christian. The "liberals" (socialists) hatred of religion predates American conservatism, the neocons/paleocons, supply-siders, ect. So this explanation has to be dismissed. There's a reason why Liberals hold onto abstract philosophy and/or philosophies which deny the possibility of absolute truth, be it post-modernism, relativism, pragmatism, Hegel/Marx, or whatever is in fashion. They attack reason and truth (natural law and deduction) because the facts explode their arguments.
I don't think Marx is any better, mind you. This is simply their reasoning.
And I'm speaking about today's liberals. Or at least some of them. There really is no continuous meaning of "liberal"; so rooting it in historicism seems to be misguided. The further you go back, perhaps the more the term "liberal" agrees with us. And at the same time "libertarian" or "anarchist" may not be an agreeable term. Such is not just the nature of political thinking, but language itself.
Laughing Man: Esuric:Yes, because Marxists want to empower the poor. Marx openly calls for the extermination of what he calls "parasites," i.e., the poor, weak, and stupid (Polish, Serbs, Gypsies), along side the "rentiers" and arbitragers. That is interesting, where did you pick that up? I am intrigued
Engels was the biggest culprit: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html
Marko:Engels was the biggest culprit: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html
Thank you for the information, this will help me develop my knowledge of Marxism.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
can a non-proselytizing religion be considered a totalitarian world-view striving for mental slavery?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I still say that you all need to PRAISE BOB or burn in slacklessness trying not to. For it is only through J.R. "Bob" Dobbs that the True Slack is revealed--which is why liberals and Marxists hate it.
I say that you should live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy
Knight_of_BAAWA:I still say that you all need to PRAISE BOB or burn in slacklessness trying not to
Is this the Bob you speak of?
Laughing Man: Knight_of_BAAWA:I still say that you all need to PRAISE BOB or burn in slacklessness trying not to Is this the Bob you speak of?
FALSE PROPHET.
Esuric:FALSE PROPHET.
Death therapy is a proven method!
Laughing Man:Is this the Bob you speak of?
(Bob's image is a trademark or registered trademark or something like that of the Chuch of the Subgenius) PRABOB
Laughing Man: Marko:Engels was the biggest culprit: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html Thank you for the information, this will help me develop my knowledge of Marxism.
I don't know why a number of you are saying that socialism is opposed to religion, true if you are going by the Marxist/Leninist creed. But the vast majority of communal orders in history have been organized by religious groups and orders. Name one sect or branch of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoisim, etc. etc. that hasn't at one time approved of or stood by the economic principles of socialism (Public ownership of the means of production, goods held in common, and so on)
I also would like to say that if you need arbitrary morality concepts such as "natural law" to justify your actions then you might have, at least what I think of as a weak personal foundation. You are responsible for your thoughts/morals, and actions. I wouldn't appeal to god to back me up just as I wouldn't appeal to "other people do it" as a justification. I want to be free, and I want others to be free too. In addition, I want the highest satisfaction I can think of in my material possessions without harming others. Those are the ends I seek, the question is what are the means? I think Austrian theory has the means correct. That doesn't make me superior in any objective sense than a person who wants to kill everyone else on the planet. I deplore that person, but how can I fault them for doing what they feel like, isn't that what I do? Laws only matter if you have people willing to abide by them.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Telpeurion: I also would like to say that if you need arbitrary morality concepts such as "natural law" to justify your actions then you might have, at least what I think of as a weak personal foundation. You are responsible for your thoughts/morals, and actions. I wouldn't appeal to god to back me up just as I wouldn't appeal to "other people do it" as a justification. I want to be free, and I want others to be free too. In addition, I want the highest satisfaction I can think of in my material possessions without harming others. Those are the ends I seek, the question is what are the means? I think Austrian theory has the means correct. That doesn't make me superior in any objective sense than a person who wants to kill everyone else on the planet. I deplore that person, but how can I fault them for doing what they feel like, isn't that what I do? Laws only matter if you have people willing to abide by them.