Atheist/Humanist/Non-Religious

Home Atheist/Humanist/Non-Religious

So true!

  • Haikugal (6095 posts)
    Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

    So true!

    Pastiche, Phlem, KauaiK and 1 otherdjean111 like this
      Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!! Kick against the pricks!!!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • FanBoy (7985 posts)
    Profile photo of FanBoy

    1. I think marx's understanding is better than rosa luxemburg's.

    The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man.

    Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.

    Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

    Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

    The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[2]
    Marx was making a structural functionalism argument about religion, and particularly about organized religion.  Marx believed that religion had certain practical functions in society that were similar to the function of opium in a sick or injured person: it reduced people’s immediate suffering and provided them with pleasant illusions, but it also reduced their energy and their willingness to confront the oppressive, heartless, and soulless reality that capitalism had forced them into.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

     

    Attacking religion from a position of presumed superiority and offering nothing in its place = not a good tactic and mostly irrelevant to any real human need.

    • Haikugal (6095 posts)
      Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

      2. Well I'm no Hitchens or Dawkins or any of the other so called new athiests

      but I find their straight talk about religion and it’s impact on society refreshing and informative. I don’t say that out of a place of superiority but most atheists have been accused of it.

        Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!! Kick against the pricks!!!
      • FanBoy (7985 posts)
        Profile photo of FanBoy

        3. I hear anti-religious 'straight talk' pretty regularly. I find those people

        incredibly boring/uninteresting and also pretty nasty.  imo.

        don’t find it ‘refreshing’ in the least.  I’d rather have a Coca-Cola than listen to the likes of them.

        • Haikugal (6095 posts)
          Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

          4. Thanks for your post. To each their own.

            Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!! Kick against the pricks!!!
Share