/siberia/ - Off-topic

The only real answer is forced atheism.

>>529235
What are your opinions of pantheism? I think it gives a sense of spiritualism that we evolved to need sociologically without the mysticism/superstition of most all religions.

>>529236
Pantheism is frustrating because it is clearly a semantic attempt to save God from Idealism by redefining material reality as God. It therefore burdens material reality with the need to live up to that title, while stripping the title of its original meaning. Most people see through that kind of trickery.

>>529234
Why limit yourself to Abrahamikkk faiths? The Dharmikkk faiths are also reactionary, as are the futile attempts to resurrect indigenous paganism and mix it with ethnonationalism.

>>529237
Well this is a problem of semantics I believe. We don't have a word to describe the reverence to the material world of matter in pantheism other then God. This inability to make a step back past the prison of monotheism that has been the last evolution since the fall of polytheism is debilitating for the ideology.

>>529238
Indeed, all religions are reactionary.
The more your views come to be based on Marxism, and science in general, the less they are based on religion.
Treating Marxism as a religion, on the other hand, does damage Marxism, because it does not properly belong in this category. You can believe in Marxism and religion at the same time, but as you assimilate one you must move away from the other.

>>529238
Because it's the religious theologies of the imperial core and hence the most important to fight. It's the same reason we see ourselves back Iran in it's reactionary government against the forces of NATO. The reactionary frameworks of colonized people both religiously and economically are less important to fight then the ones that hold current hegemony.
(This and there's so many of these religious with reactionary outlooks I'm not gonna pretend to know all them or what to do with them)

>>529241
>It's the same reason we see ourselves back Iran in it's reactionary government against the forces of NATO.
Because you're a non-marxist leftoid?

>>529243
What justifies Iran more then the American backed Zionist powers with Israel. What will stop the Communist from uprising more then them? Why do the suppress them other then the capitalist aims of their national bourgeoisie? Why because in the instability of a Marxist revolt likely a color revolution occurs. So you can claim I'm being a campist sure but communism in Iran needs to see the defeat of the Zionist West before it can defeat the Islamic theocracy. It's the Zionist imperialist since the fall of the Ottoman that have constantly stopped secularism and communism in West Asia.

>>529245
Nice thing to point out that as technological advancements and the standard of living improves so does secularism increase. With the destruction of the core/periphery dynamic and the wealth inequality of capital accumulation, that would be the biggest assault on religion. This is the biggest thing to account for that helps the discussion on whether communism has to co-opt or suppress religion.

>>529235
Agnositicism*
Atheism is also non-secular. If you can't test an idea, you can't assert it. Doing so is inherently unscientific.

The reason atheists and string theorists tend to be political bedfellows with religious zealots is because all three are frustrated with the scientific process and secular thought. They want to simply be told they're correct as a reward for believing or debating hard enough.

>>529239
>We don't have a word to describe the reverence to the material world of matter
respect, admiration, adoration, awe

>>529253
>If you can't test an idea, you can't assert it.

Atheists just don't believe in god because he can't be tested as you point out, of course it's /possible/ god exists but why believe it?

>>529253
>atheism is also a religion
xddddddddddddddddd

>>529235
Name a single country that had "forced atheism", and as an extra, name a marxist country that
also "forced atheism"

>>529322
The USSR before WW2?

Honestly we need to do a more serious scientific evaluation of religion and how it functions. It's not enough to call ot fake and gay and try to suppress it. We really need yo understand how ot works and why people believe in it. And not just in a sociology comparative religion way, but in a psychological or even psychoanalytic way.

Honestly we need to do a more serious scientific evaluation of religion and how it functions. It's not enough to call ot fake and gay and try to suppress it. We really need yo understand how ot works and why people believe in it. And not just in a sociology comparative religion way, but in a psychological or even psychoanalytic way.

>>529314
Atheists believe that the lack of proof of a god is proof of the non-existence of god, which isn't how proof works. Acknowledging the possibility and leaving it at that until further notice is agnosticism.
>>529319
Being non-secular and being a religion are two different things. Luck and string theory are two other axamples of non-secular ideas that aren't religions.

>>529333
most atheists are agnostic atheists

>>529334
Atheism isn't a spiritual practice. You can have agnostic witchcraft, because those two ideas don't conflict. You can't have an agnostic christian, because a christian inherently asserts a state of existence or non-existance–in such case: existence–of a god. Same with atheists. It's an oxymoron.

>>529336
Most atheists don't assert with absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist, just that there's no reason to believe that he exists. I mean if someone said there's no such thing as fairies would you say he's being irrational anyway? I mean after all it's not like he can know that for an absolute certainty

>>529323
Before the 1936 maybe, but freedom of religion was completely imposed by law in the 1936 constitution of Stalin.

>>529339
>I mean if someone said there's no such thing as fairies would you say he's being irrational anyway? I mean after all it's not like he can know that for an absolute certainty
Yes. If they can't prove something isn't real then it is equally as irrational as saying something is real without proof. Rational thought concerns itself with that which can be proven.

>>529253
>>529333
>>529343
philosophy student moment

Won't people become less religious under socialism as living conditions improve? religion is basically just a shitty cope for a shitty life at its simplest so what happens when your life aint shitty anymore?


>>529331
facts

This is why Israel should be the only state allowed to exist in the Middle East. All their neighbors are backwards.

>>529343
>If they can't prove something isn't real then it is equally as irrational as saying something is real without proof.
No it absolutely is not. It's not even quantitatively more rational to disbelieve something on a lack of evidence. It's qualitatively more rational to disbelieve than to believe. It's so obvious it's borderline self-evident and "agnostics" who make this silly argument should be rightfully called out as theists in denial.

explanation for this shift? are evangeilcals becoming more secular or do they not agree with or understand the whole "trinity" thing?

>>529357
I think most evangelicals arent as consistent to general doctrine.


Evangelicals dont even respect fhe New Testamemt except for Revelations.

>>529331
I think we also need to understand it in a marxist way, i.e. how is it reproduced in society? Is it vestigial, being pre-capitalist, and reproduces itself on its own power alone? Or is it reproduced by capitalist dynamics? (My money is on the latter). But understanding the specific means by which religion is reproduced is important in understanding how to undermine it, as well as understanding its inner contradictions (e.g. mass base of those who want to believe in a just world and use church for community, and billionaire christian nationalist evangelical conspirators who push christian propaganda, but push a specific christianity which is anti-worker, anti-woman, etc.).

BTW, do you really think people believe religion seriously or deeply? I don't know what to think. I've only met a few people who seem to fully believe in the same way that they believe e.g. if you drop a cup of water it will fall and spill. Most religious people I've met agree with certain philosophical positions and social doctrines, but half-believe the woo.

And even beyond the beliefs of religion, the way they function in our locales is counter-revolutionary. They are the primary way to engage in community, and because of this, 1) like philanthropy, they suck the urgency from more radical alternatives, and 2) they get to impose specific structure on community (e.g. that you are okay with irrationalism, that you will associate in a hierarchical way, that you will absorb knowledge (but not be active in its production), that you will obey, and ultimately that you don't do anything that gets you kicked out by the leadership). This is like the modus operandi of capitalism… is there a name for it? There's a pacifying effect to the idea that you are free to choose, free to associate, and so on, but in reality your choices are constrained and it's either you choose the bad option or you choose to have nothing and suffer for it.

On another note, I have a coworker who is interested in churches that feed the poor. Thats it. That's basically the extent of her interest in church, but she is super christian nonetheless (though I don't see how it impacts her daily life). Maybe we should just try to out-compete christianity. It wouldn't be a burden for a few nerds to start up some kind of mutual-ish aid program in order to attract this kind of person, and hold it in such a way that it becomes a similar locus of community but not ran in a way that is anti-people. Competing on the level of ideas will be hard though since people choose, out of tradition, to sit through teachings for christianity, but it's not like there's a discussion forum after, or a way to draw crowds to a communist education session… at least I don't think people would show up to something like that. And this sucks because consciousness is like the' key to socialism, it's about education, conscious control of society, conscious and organized rebellion, and so on. Competing with churches as an organizing force in society at the level of just bringing people into proximity is not good enough. Maybe what we need is a new type of org (or new to my knowledge), something holistic that incorporates community and pro-social, pro-working-class activities that people enjoy, as well as debate, information sharing, and so on, and even collective action (i.e. allowing the ideal side forged in discussion and education to shape the extent and type of the interventions into local life, moving from charity to challenging the causes of poverty e.g.)

>>529362
like… i guess i described basically a leftist org… but just without the label and without the devotion to a specific doctrine, without a desire to teach that doctrine, etc. Like other than that this describes a lot of socialist orgs. Idk I think our people are confused, because we create open orgs for people who are dedicated to communism e.g., the people who are drawn to study and being active politically and will in the future be important for educating the working class, people who will be targets for repression, but these orgs are the same as the ones supposed to attract average people to our cause… Like let's have clandestinity for the organizing specifically of communists and socialists, and let's have no politics attached to local social organs of community-building, organizing, discussion and education, of the masses. Not as front groups that are secretly controlled by communists, but just as organizations structurally organized such that they facilitate bringing together the well-intentioned of the working class, foster open debate and education (and the production of knowledge), and are self-directed. I like this idea for the subversion of abrahamism.

>>529355
>quantitatively more rational
Is that even a thing? Like what is one unit of rationality supposed to be? Rations?
>It's so obvious it's borderline self-evident
So vibes. You're asserting something you can't prove because vibes. There's a word for that.

>>529362
Isn't it kind of basically the same to say that "there's no evidence it exists" and "it doesn't exist" are functionally the same, in the sense that they have the same impact on our action in the world? In both cases we go on with life as if the thing doesn't exist. Even if the perfectly rational thing is to "keep an open mind and not make a determination either way, because it's not disproven", all that means in practice is that when evidence of god arrives, that you don't reject it. But like, what atheist is devoutly atheist to the degree that they would deny actually seeing miracles, and god descending from the heavens and declaring his kingdom, and so on… Any current atheist would believe after this. Why does there need to be any demarcation between atheist and agnostic?

And isn't it really self evident tho that assuming something doesn't exist because you have no evidence for it is more sensible than assuming something exists even while you have no evidence for it? One sees a lack and assumes a lack beyond their limited perception. One sees a lack and assumes something existing beyond their perception and finds excuses why they don't have any evidence. One is at least a consonant theory given the data. The other one is unsupported. But both are just theories, and not absolute. But that's all anything is is my point from the start, I guess. It's all just positing things based on what works best, it's not meant to be permanent and unchanging. But it's silly to act as if everything is indeterminate simply because there's room for rational skepticism. That's like the people who say "there's still no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, so I'm not going to believe in it."

>>529369
>>quantitatively more rational
>Is that even a thing? Like what is one unit of rationality supposed to be? Rations?
You can count things like sample size and p value with research if you really want to talk about numerics, but you don't actually need numbers to be able to quantify things, just relative degrees. If two people are arguing and one of them just makes a worse argument overall, with fewer good points or more logical fallacies then you can say their argument was worse. Qualitative would be that the nature of the argument is different rendering it incomparable in that kind of direct way. In this case, we're talking about disbelieving something with no evidence vs believing it. The reason these are fundamentally different is that disbelieving something with no evidence is something everyone does all the time with all sorts of things, and believing something without evidence is only done for extremely special cases that are carved out and treated like for some reason it's rational to think maybe god exists even though you'd never say that about Russel's teapot.
>So vibes.
No, you're just dumb.

>>529310
I suppose but God brings a totality of being. None of these being a totalizing aspect.