Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

«‹›2 »

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

I'm not sure that bravery is characterized by a willingless to crush random things regardless of whether they are an obstacle to you or not, or whether that's more a definition of stupidity.

Cool dude. *sits back and watches preventable evils ruin the earth*

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 01:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:06

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

CountFosco posted:

Yes. Now go the next step and realize that the self-awareness you feel from abandoning illusions is yet another illusion. What Max Stirner would call a "spook." Also realize that the value religion provides, to help provide meaning, is now something you can create on your own, because any meaning is actually an illusion. If you're being really honest with yourself.

Another example of the religious reducing all thought to nothing in order to defend themselves. If everything is equally meaningless, then belief in an omnipotent creator is just as reasonable as belief in witches or gravity. How do you people make it in daily life? Every day must be a nightmare of inexplicable horrors (or you're not being sincere!).

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 23:04

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Don't you get it, you can only apply the principle of self-defense when the holy ghost deems it appropriate, which is curiously only when it doesn't threaten capital.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 01:06

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

He's still right though. Arguing that delusion is inherently wrong and must be opposed for its own sake either leads you to absolute nihilism or you're not applying it consistently.

Did you just repeat my own argument back to me? Try and say something meaningful, with words that mean things.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 01:13

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Are we really stuck on "without god what's to stop us from doing whatever we want"? How old is everyone here?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 11:26

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

NikkolasKing posted:

Question. How does one embrace moral absolutism without the presence of a higher authority? What is evil now wasn't evil a few short centuries ago. Would you judge every racist or slave owner in history as evil when they could not possibly know any better?

See, this is a misconception that could have been handled if the U.S. had even a halfway decent education system. Still, I remember learning as a child that many people "knew better" even back in the day. How is possible to be unaware of all the well-known abolitionists as an adult in loving 2017?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 11:36

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Liquid Communism posted:

Hey, we haven't gotten to the Problem of Evil yet.

But I gotta be religious so I can see my mommy and daddy again after I die. Can you handle that argument, atheists?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 11:39

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

What Happens When a Irresistible Frickin' Force Meets a Unmoveable Mothershitting Object, Science? Your Move, Butt-Turd.

NikkolasKing posted:

Okay, I went to public school but I know who John Brown was and I remember the Underground Railroad stuff.

But so what? What about a century before that? Was abolitionism big in the 17th or 18th century? That I honestly don't know a thing about.

And what if we went back even further, to Antiquity? Was everyone in Athens evil because they were racist and sexist as gently caress slave owners?

I'm not really here to educate you, so I'll keep this simple: Hitler. Think about Hitler and how it applies to your question. Hitler. Anything going on? Hitler.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 22:37

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

The_Book_Of_Harry posted:

From religious leftist Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

"For civilized societies, the absence of reason and compassion is the very definition of pure evil because it is a rejection of our sacred values, distilled from millennia of struggle."

...

"The audience�s willing suspension of disbelief is great for poorly written horror films, but when government tries to promote it to the American people, us buying into it would be social suicide. We can�t suspend our rational minds while a schlockmeister-in-chief turns our foreign policy into the tacky Plan 9 From Outer Space. The only way Trump can make a ban like this work, since it is so egregiously unconstitutional, is to convince the people that there is no legitimate source of truth except his administration. Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway describes the president�s first week of extensive lying as "alternate facts" and, in a Fox interview, even used references that compared Trump to Jesus. Trump strategist Steve Bannon has called the media �the opposition party.� They are trying to convince the public that no one has the moral integrity to judge what they say or do. Just like the royalty of old that Americans fought to get away from, they rule through God�s grace and so are infallible. Just ask them."

-------
full editorial

Notice he's using explicitly non-religious arguments there. He hilariously calls values "sacred" but then profanes them by attributing their value to the fact that they were struggled for, in the real world, by real people, with real motivations. He of course knows that if he tried to use religious arguments to forward his viewpoints, he'd have no leg to stand on because he'd be entering the realm of fantasy and thus his opinion would be no more worthwhile than someone who wants to ban Muslims based on some other religious screed. Again, the main takeaway is that you can be either religious or a relatively sane participant in a worldly political system, not both.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 22:42

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

The left in America (such as it is...) fails precisely because it isn't hostile to religion. It's part of the same overarching problem of course, which is that the left in America is practically toothless, unsurprising given the history of oppression that continues here. Or you could say that the American left is not hostile enough, just in general. We want to hold ourselves to some kind of higher standard, which is noble, but there are lives at stake here and we can't afford to allow our better impulses to forgive the forces that are destroying us. The agents of capital aren't going to stop, and any kind of sane take on the principle of self-defense would empower a whole lot of direct action against fascism, all of which is being ignored because we can't even find the strength of will to deny a systematically illiberal belief system which is at odds with the very foundation of what is supposed to be a deliberative and representative government. There's no more time for "well, I disagree with you, but you have a right to your opinion" when pollution is going to kill all human life on this planet within several generations thanks to our vaunted philosophical generosity and inaction against people who are one of two things: deliberately misusing the religious arguments they purport to believe in (which makes them liars, but at least smart) or bringing the ceiling down around us based on a genuine belief in some kind of otherworldly power (which makes them criminally dangerous and insane). I hope your horses are high enough to keep you and your family above the coming floodwaters.

zh1 fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Mar 14, 2017

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 22:59

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

The Kingfish posted:

Why can't things be sacred if they were struggled for? That isn't self evident.

What is your definition of sacred? It seemed like he was trying to argue from a religious perspective. If he wasn't then he's smarter than I gave him credit for.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 23:15

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Oh man.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 23:47

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

A big flaming stink posted:

That's an....exceptionally bold claim to make, considering he was the Reverend MLK Jr.

Holy poo poo guys!

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 04:46

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

This forum is deader than the real Christ after 3 days stinking up that loving cave or whatever, what do you expect? For years now this place has been a punchline, and it's no surprise, everyone decent has been banned by the worthless mod/admin team.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 04:51

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Uh He Was The CHRIST you Guys, He was a Undeniable Religiousulilty MAN who Did a Fing...Now You Gonna Tell Me Other poo poo?? For OTHER REASON? What the fucka you fucka you gonna fucka you gonna fucka a hrer er ermmmennn....*Mashes d&d post button like a BAUS*

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 04:55

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

don't even. my first red text tar was in 2002 or something and it called me the "jerry farwell" (sic) of the left. i've been clowning on these insects since before you were a...sainted prelife in your mother's ovum-potentiate, which carried you as surely as adam carried eve's whatever in his rib, for whatever or something...see atheists, this is just as good as whatever you did with your keyboards. i am d&d 2017

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 05:05

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

lf, a terrible forum but the closest sa ever got to greatness

look at it now

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 05:19

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Shbobdb posted:

It's OK, part of the pathology of Christianity is that it has to reframe everything within the context of itself.

You see it in the thread all the time. I'll bring up a structural issue, and they'll try to personalize it. When that doesn't work, they'll try to reframe it as an ad hom. If I were trying to argue for a personal solution to a personal problem, that ad hom would make a lot of sense. But I'm not, it's not so it doesn't.

Religious people incapable of abstract thought? I'm shocked and dismayed

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 03:28

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

I am saying that your placement of value in that search is itself an article of faith. In the absence of an absolute truth, all truth and value becomes entirely subjective, as there is no absolute anchor to hold any system absolute.

You can try to couch it in whatever language you like but ultimately at some point you have simply picked a preferred aesthetic and pursued it, as everybody does.

Everything is just, like, whatever guys. Nothing matters - the religious (??)

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 05:33

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

See, my way of thinking is just as good as yours if you consider all ways of thinking to be equally worthless. Everything is just a perspective, just an opinion, it's all bullshit because that's the only way I can pretend to have an adult conversation while my magic 8 ball tells me what to do in life.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 05:37

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

I think that's really the only sensible perspective of someone who rejects the concept of faith and gods.

This does not, of course, preclude you from making up your own preferred ideas to live by, or sticking to them. Since when does a thing need to be absolute to be worth doing?

I can't actually tell what you're trying to argue. Sorry!

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 05:46

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Question for the religion-defenders. I feel like we can agree that you're defending religion as a regrettable but sometimes incidentally helpful ally to leftism, as a necessary evil that isn't going anywhere and appears to motivate certain people to fight for worthy causes. The problem here is that you could say this about anything, including paternalistic racism. What is the relevant difference between a group of people who argue for social programs based on their own private religious ideas and one who does so based on the idea that minorities are incapable of taking care of themselves and, because they are inferior to whites, need to be given an unfair but ultimately prudent leg up? Would you be defending the racist leftists with the same big tent bullshit as you do the religious leftists? Does this show you why, in a deliberative system, the argument used to arrive at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion, when accepting those premises normalize them and allow them to be used similarly in other arguments? Either we accept idiocy with good outcomes or we don't.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 15:18

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

They are both fundamentally poisonous motivators that can incidentally lead to good outcomes (I outlined this in the post, maybe read it)

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 15:28

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

The Kingfish posted:

I disagree with your premise that religion is a necessary evil. Religion is extraordinarily good.

How is religion "extraordinarily good" when a) we live among other people who don't share the same belief and b) we're in a deliberative system in which we're supposed to justify our viewpoints when they impact those who don't share the same belief? Do you think it's acceptable to limit someone's freedom based on religious dogma? If so, what is wrong with you?

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 15:36

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

The Kingfish posted:

We don't actually live in a deliberative system where power and freedom are rationally justified. I think it is desirable to limit certain freedoms on the basis of religious dogma.

Calvinst Far-left.

So you're a fascist then? Cool, I get to ignore you forever.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 15:51

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

I would disagree in that I would defend it as entirely irrelevant to the question of leftism except in the instances where it forms part of an obstructive power structure

Using your religious ideology to impact anyone's life is an obstructive power structure

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 20:24

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

That depends entirely on your religious ideology, if your religious ideology emphasises charity and self sacrifice for the wellbeing of your fellows like, y'know, the bible has some pretty ace verses on, I'd say you're probably on a pretty good track.

Not really, charity is a band-aid that ameliorates but doesn't actually solve the problems caused by capitalism. It's actually a perfect example of what's wrong with religious motivations, they play directly into the power structure without even realizing it because actual critical thought doesn't enter into it.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 20:40

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Ah yes, charity is evil, caring about the immediate plight of your peers is bad because it gets in the way of the glorious revolutionary vanguard leading us all into socialism.

I am filled with optimism about the wonderful future we would all live in if that idea got traction.

You're pretty much living proof of the dangers of allowing religious ideas anywhere near politics. Please never vote or otherwise take part in your political system.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 20:48

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Yes I, the person who thinks that homeless shelters maybe shouldn't be first against the wall, and who thinks that there's something a bit suspect about someone willing to actually say "no charity is bad and people who do it are our enemies because they're counterrevolutionary" I'm the person who has bad politics.

Can anybody here actually follow along?

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 20:53

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

I think if you've reached the point where you're actually blaming charity for the failure of the revolution because you either want an excuse or you want an excuse to blame religious people for it, you've kind of hosed your leftist cred unless you're intending to sound like some kind of tankie.

This is one hell of a dead forum.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 20:57

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

How the gently caress are there possibly more charitable bourgies than normal people? Are you seriously trying to claim that charity is predominantly comprised of the absurdly wealthy? Have you ever had anything to do with charity in your life? Because I can drat well assure you that most of the people involved with it are not loving rich.

You're way overmatched, dude

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 21:08

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

"Charity motivated by religion is good"

"No it isn't"

I said it ameliorates problems. What in your tiny brain has trouble with that?

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 21:18

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Who do you think, based on the sentence you quoted, might care about the bible.

You get three guesses.

The people ruining the planet forever
The people ruining the planet forever
The people ruining the planet forever

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 22:10

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Shbobdb posted:

"Christians" theoretically. But guess what? The Bible is an empty text.

I don't care what people read, I care what they do. Supply Side Jesus is much more immediate in the world than whatever peace-and-love Jesus you are suggesting.

What are you a tankie?? Are you some kind of communotard? Everything is the same and nothing is meaningful. Allow me to spin what I think is some kind of web but is just nakedly desperate flailing from someone who doesn't even know the terms they're trying to argue.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 22:50

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

ok, let's do this one more time even though you're going to ignore this post and keep railing against your strawman:

Charitable people are not bad. Charity itself is not inherently bad.

A society structured so that poor and working class people have to rely on charity to survive is bad.

Arguing that charity is as valuable and good as creating a society where it isn't necessary is bad.

As long as a secular, democratic social safety net exists, there's nothing wrong with charity. If that safety net does not exist, charity only papers over the intrinsic societal problem.

Dr. Fishopolis Wants Generous People to Burn at Stake. Christianity Proven True as Result of that Particular Moral Failing. - some d&d moron

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 23:29

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Well sure, but you see, from a materialist perspective...

Things are only thing if you thing. If you don't thing, you're a anti-thinger and you therefore thing. I post in d&d 2017. What you thing is just a thing that I can thing if you thing. I can post :ironicat:

to show you that you thing, I do a thing, I can't do THAT thing, at least not on Tuesday, but you do a thing and therefore a thing is wrong if you do it. Things are not things though when I post, they are only things when you thing the thing that things and I am not involved.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 23:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:06

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

One Thread With Actual Debate In It Rated Poorly in D&D 2017; Users Complain of Real Things Being Discussed

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 23:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

«‹›2 »