-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Sudan: Men 'living with genies'
- Thread starter Han
- Start date
Free episodes:
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
I think that most serious philosophers, historians or economists recognize that Marx was a brilliant thinker. Whether you choose to go along with his rationales is partly a personal (political) choice, but to deny his brilliance is, well, scraping the bottom.
Another thing is that your reference makes no sense in context, as Marx thoroughly recognized what a powerful tool of control over people that religion/superstition is, and Marx warned against it. You see the American religious right trying to take control over peoples' minds by preaching about the wrath of God, you see workers vote for such politicians against their own financial interests. When religion enters, the rational takes a backseat.
Take someone like Michelle Bachmann, a member of Congress, who literally expresses a longing for doomsday. That's exactly the kind of insanity which the rational Marx would have spoken against, so it's completely ironic that you chose to equal Marx and crazy religion/superstition.
Last edited:
Stagger Lee
Paranormal Adept
"you see workers vote for such politicians against their own financial interests"
Brilliant post Jimi, and I've been scratching my head at these folks for the last ten years.
Brilliant post Jimi, and I've been scratching my head at these folks for the last ten years.
Wade
FeralNormal master
With the caveat that I have only a basic understanding of Marx's beliefs, I could always appreciate...once I became an independent thinker...his thoughts on religion being used as a control.tool over the masses. Where I do have a falling out with him is his distaste for private property. I do understand his rational against it was that it was a way to divide classes, but realistically in any society, any era, any theology, the accumulation of private property was always present and always will be pursued by people of power and used to create more power. whether it's the church or the state there will always be people that have more than others regardless of the system, so that being the case, why not let other people get a piece of the pie ?
Last edited:
RenaissanceLady
Paranormal Adept
The only thing I'd add about about Karl Marx is that the one particular quote used so often by Atheists isn't always understood in its full context:
Whether or not we agree with some of Karl Marx's political ideologies, he was certainly a genius for understanding how societies function. As Jimi so brilliantly noted, the beliefs by many that their suffering will lead to greater rewards is why so many continue voting against their own interests and for those who exploit them.
Sounds straightforward enough, yet we often fail to grasp that this was more of an indictment of society that of religion. We should keep in mind, in the 19th Century, when Karl Marx made his famous statement, opium was a medicinal treatment used to help people manage pain. Of course, its dangerous side effects were noticed even then. There were no shortage of people becoming addicted to opium while many others suffered fatal overdoses - often intentionally. Religion and drug use was a coping mechanism, usually done by those who had (or believed they had) very little actual control over their own lives, enacted by those who were truly suffering. It allowed them comforting illusions about their own lot in life while offering them the consolation that whatever suffering and injustices inflicted upon them in this life would result in greater rewards during the next one. If they hadn't found delirious ways of coping with social, economic and even religious injustices, they might take a critical look at those forces that exploit them. As Marx certainly understood, religion - and the problems with religion - were a reflection of a society's injustices. Religion is still used by its leaders to find and mobilize against a common enemy, lest the masses start to recognize the enemies and injustices among themselves. It keeps people complacent, much as lambs being led to the slaughter.
Whether or not we agree with some of Karl Marx's political ideologies, he was certainly a genius for understanding how societies function. As Jimi so brilliantly noted, the beliefs by many that their suffering will lead to greater rewards is why so many continue voting against their own interests and for those who exploit them.
Last edited:
Pygar2
Paranormal Maven
Thinking brilliantly about rock-stupid ideas gets him no respect in my book; neither does his notion he had something better than religion to pass along. And the fact that some people actually put the good of the country, and human civilization, ahead of their own financial benefit- is exactly the kind of behavior we sneer at the government for *not* doing.
Name one other person who has harmed human civilization as much as he has. Between the Communists, National and Democrat Socialists, Maoists... the list goes on. Name a religion that has killed as many people during its existence, as Marx-inspired people have in just the last century. And don't bother claiming the Nazis were right-wing; control of everything by the government is about as right-wing as Hillary Clinton. True, since Marxism itself works for no life-form higher than bees, you can claim *any* Marx-inspired government is not "really" Marxist- and then proceed to call all the blatant failures "rightist", or for that matter, "splunge". So please don't bother.
The simple fact of the matter is that someone, even in Marxist countries, has to do some work. Combining the government with the owners is no way to ensure more freedom to the ones to do it. The comment above implying that religions are purely for control, was not written by someone doing an unsurvivable ten-year sentence mining uranium with no gloves or lead gear- like those religion-free types used to condemn workers to do. Religion at its best is about building a better *you*- and spending eternity in a much nicer set of circumstances. Doesn't sound like victimization to me... Religion at its worst is when someone only *claims* to be religious, but is in it for themselves. If someone robbed a bank and used your name, you wouldn't claim debit for it, so I don't see why religion should be expected to shoulder the blame for phony "religions".
Usually, at this point in most threads, someone tries to make a distinction between Marxism, Socialism, National and Democrat Socialists... and since the difference is no more important than the difference between a headsman's axe and a guillotine, perhaps we can skip it this once. A difference of degree rather than kind, only matters if escalation isn't guaranteed... and human nature is, in the end, human nature.
Name one other person who has harmed human civilization as much as he has. Between the Communists, National and Democrat Socialists, Maoists... the list goes on. Name a religion that has killed as many people during its existence, as Marx-inspired people have in just the last century. And don't bother claiming the Nazis were right-wing; control of everything by the government is about as right-wing as Hillary Clinton. True, since Marxism itself works for no life-form higher than bees, you can claim *any* Marx-inspired government is not "really" Marxist- and then proceed to call all the blatant failures "rightist", or for that matter, "splunge". So please don't bother.
The simple fact of the matter is that someone, even in Marxist countries, has to do some work. Combining the government with the owners is no way to ensure more freedom to the ones to do it. The comment above implying that religions are purely for control, was not written by someone doing an unsurvivable ten-year sentence mining uranium with no gloves or lead gear- like those religion-free types used to condemn workers to do. Religion at its best is about building a better *you*- and spending eternity in a much nicer set of circumstances. Doesn't sound like victimization to me... Religion at its worst is when someone only *claims* to be religious, but is in it for themselves. If someone robbed a bank and used your name, you wouldn't claim debit for it, so I don't see why religion should be expected to shoulder the blame for phony "religions".
Usually, at this point in most threads, someone tries to make a distinction between Marxism, Socialism, National and Democrat Socialists... and since the difference is no more important than the difference between a headsman's axe and a guillotine, perhaps we can skip it this once. A difference of degree rather than kind, only matters if escalation isn't guaranteed... and human nature is, in the end, human nature.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
Excellent points RL!
Wade
FeralNormal master
Let them fend for themselves
Sorry wwkirk I know what your getting to but I couldn't resist.
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
The cleric states these older men are neat and good house keepers as the reason they are "married" to Jinns.
Well dang, I guess I must be polygimous and married to a Jinn too if that's his only reasoning.
I can't stand it when the house is a mess. I'm close to having OCD when it comes to keeping the house clean, but I think that stems from my Army days, not because of a Jinn!
Well dang, I guess I must be polygimous and married to a Jinn too if that's his only reasoning.
I can't stand it when the house is a mess. I'm close to having OCD when it comes to keeping the house clean, but I think that stems from my Army days, not because of a Jinn!
