Soviets were so based

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Soviets were so based

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
time.com/4639596/inauguration-day-presidents-bible-passages/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

*tips fedora*

Damn he got to the obvious joke before I could

*tips fedora*

m'gulag

This meme needed to die in 1844.

video games dont delude people to believe in bullshit and become a tool of the church though

Citation needed

What about humans vs orcs?

The purpose they serve is the same that Marx believed religion gave people during the time when he was alive as in: it reduces people's immediate suffering and provides them with pleasant illusions. Also? Subconsciously they can delude you into believing bullshit. I don't mean the horseshit spouted by the media that they cause mass shootings, I mean other things.


Instead, you become a tool for big companies who want your money and focus-tested marketing.

Please also note that I don't mean I want videogames banned. I play some myself. I just think it's rather hypocritical to call for a communist justification of banning religion when religion isn't even all that big anymore and the distraction from suffering under capitalism it once provided for most people has been replaced by the things I mentioned.

Religion mainly exists because people live shitty lives and need to feel better.

If communism can make everyone's life better it wont really matter much after a few generations

Then there's no need to enforce a state-wide, /r/atheism style banning of it beyond a few regulations that keep it from exploiting people for the worse.

Where are they now?

Religions have been tied up with politics and economics since always. The justification for feudalism was based on the idea of the world as a hierarchy with God at the top. Imperialism was justified as a means to spread religion. The actual reasons for these things are material, but religion played a crucial role in disguising that. Marx was right that people flock to religion as an expression of their distress, but he understated its impact in enforcing the status quo. When people literally believe there is a powerful creator who will punish them for stepping out of line or reward them for being gud werker, they are much less likely to rebel.

It's painfully obvious many religious people use this board and are butthurt by atheism, because it's one of those things that whenever it gets discussed it gets memed into oblivion.

Dissolved in 1941. Turns out not very many people who were a part of it really cared all that much about enforcing its ideals.

No, he very much said that it was causing people to accept a status quo and that was part of its enforcement.


I'm not butthurt by something I believe, I'm just sick of fucking /r/atheists thinking mass-banning of religion is going to do jack shit in the modern age when it's less relevant than it was 100's of years ago and when most of that same distraction and justifications it provided for status quo has been largely replaced by other things.

How would courts work under communism? Who will pay them, how will they be chosen? wouldnt literally many people want to be judge cuz lul job LOOKs simple or easy

...

I did say "understated".

You're cool then. Some people aren't so cool. As for other things replacing religion, that's a very important point and an area where we need more theory. On the other hand, religion still plays a significant role. See the US policies on abortion and family planning (which cause more people to be born in poverty) or their exporting of religious zealotry overseas, especially to Africa which continues to play a major role in all sorts of heinous shit that goes down there from funneling charity money into the hands of warlords to prosecuting gays. Religion is still very much an arm of the ruling class even though its hegemony has diminished.

I misread that as "he didn't emphasize this enough."


Yes, fair enough. These things I agree with. Separation of Church and state needs to be much more enforced than it is in the US and I think even neoliberals will agree with that. I think once we really truly enforce a separation of church and state, allowing religion is not a problem as long as we ensure the Church can not influence policy in a way that can harm the proletariat. And I don't think religious people should be banned from having some kind of state authority as long as their religious beliefs don't influence their political policy.

Whether or not any sort of religious belief becomes bigger or smaller after that is largely irrelevant as long as it stays separate from the political establishment.

That is my opinion.

I read it and I more or less agree. I'd go farther and say trying to actively ban religion is going to entrench people and be counterproductive.

Citation needed that they do, onus probandi and shit

You guys are all fucking idiots. Religion is NOT harmless. It justifies and perpetuates right wing ideology. 50 years ago the US was a moderately progressive world superpower with the highest standard of living in world history. For 50 years the religious right has been selling that out to corporate interests in exchange for the chance to enforce Christian Shariah law on the country.

When someone truly believes in the afterlife, you can get them to sell out their own economic interests (and everyone else's) if you convince them God wants them to. Believe me, I used to be one of these people until I had the religion beaten out of me by rational argument.

Smash religion

Not really. Religion hasn't had a significant role in capitalism in over 100 years. Militant atheism serves no purpose other than to force historically oppressed peoples to abandon the traditions that have helped keep them alive.

Are you seriously suggesting that American have gotten more religious over the years? Also the US has never been progressive. You are just a LARPing liberal.

Not in numbers, but in fervor.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

And you're a LARPing fascist.

Kekkity kek

Wow much christian

Almost like he read Mathew 5:34-37!

But he did for his second inauguration anyways.

time.com/4639596/inauguration-day-presidents-bible-passages/