Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

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

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Religion is a poison in the sense that it tends to reward illogical thought, and any kind of logical conclusion tends to reward communist thought, so it's no accident that there is a tension between religion and "the left" insofar as it actually is "the left" and not what America considers "the left," which is actually a right-center position. Insofar as they're based on actual argumentation, so-called religious positions aren't, and insofar as they're based on mystic garbage, they aren't intelligible to anyone who doesn't already subscribe to the same crystal ball readings and astrological horseshit. The only proper response to anyone espousing any kind of religious dogma in the public sphere is derision, just as the only proper response to anyone espousing any kind of capitalist dogma in the public sphere is to recognize the deadly self-interest inherent in it and react with force in kind. It should be no surprise to anyone that capitalists, like religionists, are adept at fooling themselves because Western religions are set up to be abused by the wealthy.

If you need religion to come to a leftist conclusion, you aren't a very good leftist.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 03:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:03

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

TheImmigrant posted:

The Marxist Left, being a creation of and largely a movement of the West, is hostile to Western religion [read: Christianity and Judaism]. This Left is also obsessed with (Western) colonialism as Original Sin and pulls its punches to the point of refusing to criticize or even objectively scrutinize anything categorized as Not Of The West (Other), in a sort of inverted Orientalism.

The result is strident criticism of Christianity, which has largely been neutered as a political and cultural influence in the West. Contrast this with a refusal to criticize religions of the Other, which have not been similarly castrated in civic life, and play a far greater role in retarding progress in their respective societies. It's a creepy form of fetishization, and dehumanizing of those deemed to be Other.

Christianity is uniquely vile but you are correct that there is a definite hesitance to call attention to the worst aspects of all world religions, each of which are uniquely abhorrent to anyone with a conscience. The problem is our recent history of invading largely Muslim nations, leading those soupy idiots on the American left to lionize the also-idiotic and harmful religion of those we subjugated. Just another example of American leftists not really being leftists at all.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 03:40

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

We harmed Islamic nations, therefore we have to defend Islam - a group of people so unfamiliar with logical thought that they should be slapped if they called themselves leftists, let alone Marxists

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 03:42

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

I mean ultimately, leftism tends to be concerned with material issues, whereas religion tends to be concerned with moral or spiritual ones.

How is 'moral' distinct from material? And why are you equating it with spiritual?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 03:50

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Magic Hate Ball posted:

Which is what, anyways?

To be as hardline and hidebound as possible until someone questions you even slightly, then it's to be milquetoast and meaningless as possible

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 03:57

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Well broadly most of the religions you're likely to have much to do with work on the principle that there's a God and that God wants you to do things a certain way. And that doing things that way will bring you spiritual benefits which far outweigh your material concerns in your day to day life. I assume you're familiar with that concept at least.

So, an insane person then? How do I reason with such a person?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:03

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

How do I argue with someone who is chasing spiritual benefits, when that's all they care about and I'm not god, so I can't manifest any argument that's going to supersede those spiritual benefits? Do you want me to cover myself with chicken blood when I ask them to treat unbelievers as people?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:05

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

I don't know, how do you reason with someone who has no moral absolutes and is clearly one step away from murdering everyone around them if the fancy takes them because what would inhibit them?

I'm asking you how to argue with insane people

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:09

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Another of many thousands of case studies in how religious people and their defenders can't even follow along

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:10

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Sinnlos posted:

I'm a practicing Catholic and a leftist.The "left" is only hostile to religion because some "leftists" choose to adopt hostile attitudes.

You are only one of the two of those!

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:11

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

And I'm trying to suggest that perhaps utilizing a degree of non-consequentialist ethics isn't actually a form of completely alienating insanity.

How do I argue with someone when I don't share their view of the creator, if we're going to allow creator-inspired arguments into the fold? Easy question.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:13

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

See how easily the religious retreat into the old "well all people are really irrational at the end of the day" canard? This shouldn't be so easy

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:14

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

It's really easy, everyone. If you want to be religious, you do it on your own time. It doesn't go anywhere near your politics or your worldview or your ballot box. If it does, you are a fascist, even if your intentions are seemingly pure. That's the price you pay to belong to civilization: you can't justify your use of force on others via something that can't be explained or extrapolated. If this is unsatisfactory, you're welcome to live in the woods with other members of your coven.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:17

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Sinnlos posted:

We are all perfectly rational actors, which is why Libertarianism is a coherent and practicable ideology with zero flaws.

Haha I called it. All people are nutty guys!!

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:19

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Are you... actually a libertarian?

No I actually drink a soda every now and then, which means I'm irrational because it's bad for you, ergo I'm the same as someone who justifies slavery based on an ancient text, because everything is equivalent and this is d&d 2017

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:21

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

What if all logic is flawed??? What if squares are acually circles? THen maybe my religious arguments are actually ok in any kind of logical conception of a public sphere? Yes, I'm 9,

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:22

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Then are you a consequentialist?

I'm a dadaist actually.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:23

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

"Off your medication" is not the same as dadaism.

I'm sorry if I told you how stupid you are dude

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:25

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Sinnlos posted:

Listen, you don't understand sarcasm, you struggle with reading comprehension, and you'd rather be "right" than actually engage with anyone. Take a step back.

hahaha

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:29

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Mr. Wiggles posted:

You're kind of an idiot hth.

On the bright side, there is still time to educate yourself!

prediction: i get probated and he doesn't

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:44

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Patrick Spens posted:

If your definition of racist includes MLK, you are a moron and need to use words better.

d&d 2017 everyone

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:46

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Mr. Wiggles posted:

Criminy, it's like 2005 in here with the goontheists popping up.

You mean about when you were told to shut the gently caress up once and for all by people with a brain cell?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:24

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

"Religion not allowed" is a religious position. It makes absolutely no sense to say that you are in favor of religious freedom while also saying that the only religious position that should be represented in law is your own preferred religious position, which is the absence of religion.

oh my god. is this a middle school forum? what happened to this place? (hint: i know what happened to it)

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:27

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

the admins got tired of getting reports from idiotic rightists offended that people were calling them on their bullshit so they installed a bunch of mods who killed the forum and banned anyone with a real opinion, what you're reading now is the fruits of their labors lmao

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:29

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

BattleMoose posted:

Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with.

I would also like to hear your SECULAR view against gay marriage. It should be a doozy.

but by saying religion is bad...you are being religious You Are Self...!!! And That Make's You...Just as Bad As the JaBrOnIeS you are criticizing. *loving smashes that futbol into the turf*

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:31

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Rejection of religion is a religious position...

If you are looking to construct a secular society that is a religious position. You don't get to opt out of the whole subject and declare yourself above it.

hahaha even this poo poo wouldn't have been tolerated ten years ago

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:32

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

the one thread here which isn't a moronic chat thread with thousands of pages has a guy saying "well atheism is a religion because it doesn't like religions so therefore"

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:34

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

i don't know how many times and in how many threads i can say it before i'm banned but i want anyone unfamiliar with this forum to know that this was never a good discussion forum, but it at least wasn't the graveyard it now is. at one time there was something resembling discussion here, but about 9 years ago, it began, and anyone criticizing obama was banned, then anyone advocating correct politics was banned, and now it's a moonscape of piddling 'centrists' and mr wiggles. i don't recognize anyone else because you're all insects who wouldn't know an actual conversation if it met with you, decided upon concrete deliberative milestones, reached a sort of consensus derived from common ground, proffered a novel and well-argued position at odds with your own, considered your riposte and allowed it to influence the aforementioned principles, and generally grew mutually via a system of discourse to arrive a set-upon conclusion which could potentially allow society to continue existing for future generations

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:45

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

BattleMoose posted:

SECULAR LAWS, do you understand what secular means?!

it's pretty clear that guy doesn't know what his own foot is dude

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:47

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Your demand for secular laws is a religious perspective therefore it makes absolutely no sense to try and claim it as an absolutely correct position, above criticism from an opposing religious perspective.

I mean bloody hell if you need to pretend that atheism is an absolute moral truth then why do you even bother believing it?

you can't be more than 15

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:54

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Motto posted:

I never found religion convincing but my parents' church thinks gay people are alright so

cool dude. that's maximum fwiggin epic.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 06:05

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

It also requires a rejection of the idea that there is anything to the world beyond the observable and material. Which is an idea you have been exposed to if you live basically anywhere on earth.

It is a decision, insomuch as anything is a decision, to construct your entire worldview based on material perception, which most definitely is a belief system, it is simply based on a different reference than a religious one.

Secular laws use materialist concepts of empathy, compassion and reason. Secularism, by excluding all non-materialistic positions, is by necessity a materialist position.

Real World Interactions Governed by Real World Observations, News at 11...BC

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 06:17

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

"i support helping the needy because i think it is nice" = good, correct thought

"i support helping the needy because the bible explicitly says that i will go to hell if i don't" = bad, false thought, apparently

what exactly is wrong with you

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 06:45

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

this forum could not be deader

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 06:46

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

*crouches down likes he's talking to children* so do we see why....the left is and should be hostile to religion?? anyone?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 07:32

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Loving Life Partner posted:

Out-loud atheism and being hostile to religion is mostly a reactionary position and even conservative at times.

Thank you for summarizing in one easy sentence why we'll never have a livable or just society.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 21:00

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Who What Now posted:

What evidence is there for the spiritual? What even is "spiritual"?

For a group of people who believe in absolutes, the religious are curiously quick to make everything equally meaningless and bring all thought down to the level of inconsequential babbling the second their dogma is questioned. Look at this whole thread.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 23:56

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Why are non-religious people arguing for the religious? Could it be a part of the moronic and unfounded backlash against atheism?

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 00:15

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Who What Now posted:

Arguing that religious people aren't strawmen isn't arguing for them.

So you think they're incapable of defending themselves?

Wait a minute, they are!

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 00:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:03

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

Brainiac Five posted:

The fundamental issue is that there are a great many people who become atheists from being raised in a bigoted religious environment like evangelical Protestantism without ever abandoning the ways of thinking it produces, so they end up latching onto something as the absolute truth which must push out all "competing" beliefs because they are necessarily wrong, and since this is usually the sciences they become quick to insist that science crushes religion and must destroy it.

They do manage to put up a pretense that they have "no problem" with religious people so long as they're not bigoted, but their actions make it clear that their endgoal is to annihilate religion and religiosity.

Science does crush religion though, and is incompatible with it. Just like most of the people in this thread aren't really religious, but are enamored with defending their plainly idiotic belief system out of some kind of misguided soupy attempt at open-mindedness (again, this is why the left fails and will always fail: it falls short of actually condemning the things that are destroying our planet), most so-called religious people are just playing at a hobby they're not really invested in. And good thing too, because a real religious person is a dangerous animal and should be institutionalized. Why should we allow someone who derives their worldview from an inexplicable, non-shareable, irrational ancient tale to take part in our political movement? Isn't the whole point of communism that it's a good idea, with a proven track record and mountains of philosophical and social evidence to back it up? How does someone who doesn't care about ideas, track records, evidence, logical conclusions, etc. even find it, except through an intellectual capriciousness that could just as easily swing back towards conservatism? And why should we humor them? Are we really this cowardly?

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 01:13

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

«‹›2 »