DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Dawkins

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 14 2007 10:42
Quote:
Its one thing to hae an 'issue' with religion, its quite another to attack an organisation solely because a unitarian preacher.

I didn't the main point was about their MPs, who also happen to be employers.

Quote:
Now while devrim claims it was because of the preachers reltionship with his employers, it was fairly obious that WP wasn't organising a union within his church so i'd say his accusation was fairly sspect on these grounds.

So why is he in a union then? I would suggest that it is because the IWW isn't actually a union. I think that the points there were clearly about the nature of the IWW.

Quote:
Condemning an organisation for having religious members,

There are different organisations. I wouldn't condemn a strike committee because it had a Christian on it. I would be shocked though to meet someone in a communist organisation who professed to religious beliefs, and was extremely surprised when a member of a UK anarchist organisation started to expound to me about their religious beliefs.

Quote:
and not being able to differentiate between fundamentalism such as opus dei or something, and more moderate forms of religion such as unitarianism are a bit of a problem.

I can differentiate between these things. Actually, when the thing first came up, I had never heard of Unitarianism. I did look it up on the internet after, and it is one of these mystical nonsense groups. Of course they are not as dangerous as some groups. It still plays a role of mystification though, same shit, different packet.

Quote:
Serious question like, as regards ENgland or the US, do you not think the somewhat rabid approach to religion displayed by certain anarchists puts a fair number of people off?

I don't think that I have a rabid approach to religion. In fact the first post I made on Libcom was arguing against some militant atheist group. I also remember arguing that some anti-religious picket some people were organising had nothing to do with the class struggle. I think that anarchist nutters going round screaming about religion is a waste of time.

On another point we don't not do things because they may 'put a fair number of people off'. There are times when you have to 'put people off'.

Devrim

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 14 2007 11:27
Beltov wrote:
quint wrote:
A purely rationalist attack on religion will inevitably be elitist because religion is what people turn to get some community in an alienating isolating world. Marx once wrote, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions." It displaces hopes for change onto the afterlife. Rationalism is incapeable changing this. An up turn in class struggle would make it seem possible to change things here and now. The communities created by working class people in struggle, are the real threat to religion.

Yes, I'd agree with Feight and EdWobbly, Quint has probably made the most important point on this thread so far, which goes in the same direction as a recent article written by one of our sympathisers on how capitalism uses religion,

But wasn't Marx's point that it is a two-way dynamic - the persistence of religion, and beliefs myth and "pie in the sky when you die", makes concrete action to change material conditions in the here and now less likely because it makes suffering more sufferable?

edit - just wanted to expand this point.

quint wrote:
It [religion] displaces hopes for change onto the afterlife. Rationalism is incapeable changing this.

If, as you say, religion displaces hope for change to the afterlife, then by necessity it is against current material class struggle. One can have a critique of religion that combines both a rationalist critique in terms of its objective truth value and ana analysis of it social roots - it doesn't have to be one or the other. A synthesis of the two recognises that it's a two-way dynamic. religion while having social roots in inequal relations, also serves to reinforce the social relations that produce it.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 14 2007 11:36

This thread should be split into an anarchism and religion thread or something. In fairness to Cantdo, while I can't stomach his fondness for irrational shite wink , this thread is about Dawkins and as such it's kinda fair for him to vent about Dawkins shit politics.

I also think it's fair to say that not a single person on this thread has said they see Dawkins as useful in political terms so i don't know why Cantdo goes on about it in such a manner, who are you trying to convince Cantdo? We know he's a smug Oxford don, big fuckin deal, doesn't stop him knowing shit about science.

Fuck sake, if I go to hospital and the doc is a posh tory twat I'll still let him/her treat me - they're not my political allies but they're still good for something wink

makaira
Offline
Joined: 16-10-06
Feb 14 2007 15:14
xConorx wrote:
Fuck sake, if I go to hospital and the doc is a posh tory twat I'll still let him/her treat me - they're not my political allies but they're still good for something ;)

Fucking a.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Feb 14 2007 15:59
Devrim wrote:
I didn't the main point was about their MPs, who also happen to be employers.

Yes, and we all knew that was a fair criticism, but just because that one was doesn't make your attack on wobbly preacher correct by association does it.

Quote:
Now while devrim claims it was because of the preachers reltionship with his employers, it was fairly obious that WP wasn't organising a union within his church so i'd say his accusation was fairly sspect on these grounds.

Quote:
So why is he in a union then?

1.Because he's a part time priest
2.because he supports the ideas of the IWW
3.The IWW has always had priests and religious individuals attatched to it, so whats new.
4.I'm not that keen on the IWW myself, but its not a union simply in the strict economic sense.

Quote:
There are different organisations. I wouldn't condemn a strike committee because it had a Christian on it. I would be shocked though to meet someone in a communist organisation who professed to religious beliefs.

Hence why i call you bakuninist

Quote:
I can differentiate between these things. Actually, when the thing first came up, I had never heard of Unitarianism. I did look it up on the internet after, and it is one of these mystical nonsense groups. Of course they are not as dangerous as some groups. It still plays a role of mystification though, same shit, different packet.

Like i said you can't differentiate between the two.

Quote:
On another point we don't not do things because they may 'put a fair number of people off'. There are times when you have to 'put people off'.

So going around sounding like some nutcase who wants to repress religious beleif is a good thing. And we should be 'putting off'' religious people from socialism should we? What balls.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 14 2007 17:06
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Devrim wrote:
On another point we don't not do things because they may 'put a fair number of people off'. There are times when you have to 'put people off'.

So going around sounding like some nutcase who wants to repress religious beleif is a good thing. And we should be 'putting off'' religious people from socialism should we? What balls.

How can you disagree with Devrim's point in principal? People here say things all the time and conduct themselves online and I'd imagine in activities or meeting or whatever that might "put off" certain types. For example: lifestylists, individualists, hippies, anti-socials, racists. I don't actually see anything wrong with this in principle. Why should religion get more special treatment than any other ideology or viewpoint Cantdo? If you don't want meetings or activities full of lifestylists, hippies, individualists etc then why not find it undesirable for people spouting mystical balls to be about?

I'm by no means saying they shouldn't be "put off socialism" but that no-one wants to hear their shite when talking about it.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 14 2007 17:11

But unlike being a lifestylist, individualist, hippy, anti-social or racist, there's not necessarily a problem with somebody being religious.

I mean, presumably you wouldn't have a problem with working with that Catholic Worker lot in principle?

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 14 2007 17:21
madashell wrote:
But unlike being a lifestylist, individualist, hippy, anti-social or racist, there's not necessarily a problem with somebody being religious.

I mean, presumably you wouldn't have a problem with working with that Catholic Worker lot in principle?

Not if they keep it to themselves. read my last sentence, not saying I'd have a problem with working with them, but I certainly don't want to hear any god bollocks or fairytale shite because it doesn't help in practical terms. The minuite that shit is brought into the public domain it's entitled to the same criticism as anything else.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 14 2007 17:26
xConorx wrote:
Not if they keep it to themselves. read my last sentence, not saying I'd have a problem with working with them, but I certainly don't want to hear any god bollocks or fairytale shite because it doesn't help in practical terms. The minuite that shit is brought into the public domain it's entitled to the same criticism as anything else.

Ah, I didn't spot that bit.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 14 2007 19:53

I wrote:

Devrim wrote:
I can differentiate between these things. Actually, when the thing first came up, I had never heard of Unitarianism. I did look it up on the internet after, and it is one of these mystical nonsense groups. Of course they are not as dangerous as some groups. It still plays a role of mystification though, same shit, different packet.

Cantdo wrote:

cantdocartwheels wrote:
Like i said you can't differentiate between the two.

I wrote:

Devrim wrote:
I don't think that I have a rabid approach to religion. In fact the first post I made on Libcom was arguing against some militant atheist group. I also remember arguing that some anti-religious picket some people were organising had nothing to do with the class struggle. I think that anarchist nutters going round screaming about religion is a waste of time.

On another point we don't not do things because they may 'put a fair number of people off'. There are times when you have to 'put people off'.

Cantdo wrote:

cantdocartwheels wrote:
So going around sounding like some nutcase who wants to repress religious beleif is a good thing.

I added the bold to point out clearly what I said. Maybe the first one isn't clear, but the second one certainly is very clear.

Devrim

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 14 2007 20:27
revol68 wrote:
Don't you think young women from religious muslim or catholic communities might have take issue with religion.

you'd be surprised. a remarkable assertion by women who take the hijab is that by doing so they're performing an act of self-assertion. (of course those women aren't from said communities, they're entering them, but the hijab sends me the same message, born into it or no.) a remarkable assertion by catholic prolife women is that they're feminists. i've long given up caring about such claims, but these people aren't stupid and being a skeptic i can't say that have 'false consciousness'.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 14 2007 21:39

well, you "clearly" meant that the women from those communities who take issue with religion are the ones who might take issue with religion.

tongue

but no i shouldn't have thought you'd be surprised. something about ireland, i'm guessing.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Feb 14 2007 23:19
xConorx wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Devrim wrote:
On another point we don't not do things because they may 'put a fair number of people off'. There are times when you have to 'put people off'.

So going around sounding like some nutcase who wants to repress religious beleif is a good thing. And we should be 'putting off'' religious people from socialism should we? What balls.

How can you disagree with Devrim's point in principal? People here say things all the time and conduct themselves online and I'd imagine in activities or meeting or whatever that might "put off" certain types. For example: lifestylists, individualists, hippies, anti-socials, racists. I don't actually see anything wrong with this in principle. Why should religion get more special treatment than any other ideology or viewpoint Cantdo? If you don't want meetings or activities full of lifestylists, hippies, individualists etc then why not find it undesirable for people spouting mystical balls to be about?

I'm by no means saying they shouldn't be "put off socialism" but that no-one wants to hear their shite when talking about it.

We put off active racists, severe anti-socials and people who want to live in a fucking mud hut because such behaiour is incompatable with a communist society. Likewise we would put off fundamentalists because their behaiour is incompatable with communism. Having your bog standard easter and christmas anglican type religious beleif isn't inompatable with any ideas of communism unless you are some sort of mad maoist whose idea of communism consists of some weird set of year zero purges. Put bluntly, whether the anarchist movement like to hear about religion or not, or whther it send them into a sloganeering tantrum everytime someone mentions the G word. Its a pretty safe bet hundreds of millions of people are most likely going to carry on beleiving in various religions or forms of spirituality to various extents in a communist society, largely because its interesting, comforting and people are terrified of death. So you might aswell get used to it innit.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Feb 14 2007 23:30
Devrim wrote:
I added the bold to point out clearly what I said. Maybe the first one isn't clear, but the second one certainly is very clear.

Devrim

Ok, the second one was admittedly a throw away comment. But i do stick by the first one.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Feb 14 2007 23:39

Jesus died for our sins.

makaira
Offline
Joined: 16-10-06
Feb 14 2007 23:43
James Woolley wrote:
Jesus died for our sins.

To be fair, he seemed like a nice guy...

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Feb 14 2007 23:47
makaira wrote:
James Woolley wrote:
Jesus died for our sins.

To be fair, he seemed like a nice guy...

Yeah, when the working class are being fucked, they're meant to turn the other cheek and ask for more.

It's funny how much that's misquoted. 'Turn the other cheek' as most people say Jesus said, and then conveniently expurgate him then stating the victim should ask for more.

Oh yeah, and I seem to recall him saying how he had not come into the world to bring peace, but a sword.

But then some parts of the Bible are more accurate than others blah blah blah.

makaira
Offline
Joined: 16-10-06
Feb 15 2007 00:00

I was referring to him healing the blind and whatnot. I mean, if you cured the blind then I would consider you a nice guy...

grin

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Feb 15 2007 00:04
makaira wrote:
I was referring to him healing the blind and whatnot. I mean, if you cured the blind then I would consider you a nice guy...

grin

That's wasn't possible in Jesus' time, though, and I'm not entirely sure if it is now.

makaira
Offline
Joined: 16-10-06
Feb 15 2007 00:11
James Woolley wrote:
makaira wrote:
I was referring to him healing the blind and whatnot. I mean, if you cured the blind then I would consider you a nice guy...

grin

That's wasn't possible in Jesus' time, though, and I'm not entirely sure if it is now.

OK. That's just blasphemy, and I want to here no more of it!

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
Feb 15 2007 01:30
Devrim wrote:
Quote:
I've read "Selfish Gene" and it is shit. Dawkin's misrepresents or omits factors in evolutionary processes such as genetic linkage, pleitropy and drift to spin his ideology.

See what I mean about people attacking him though. I have read it, and I don't even see this 'ideology' that you say he is spinning.

But think of it like this: if he's not peddling his interactionist hobbesianism like you say, why does he misrepresent evolutionary processes? A simple oversight perhaps...