Why can't we have socialism without all the faggotry and shitting on religion?

You are just naive of you think people are religious because they are dumb.

I think someone here said it best, that under socialism the churches would be closed not by force, but from disuse. Meaning that it wouldn't be right to force people to abandon their beliefs (nor would that necessarily work) but rather to provide for their material and social well-being such that there is no more need to resort to organized religion.

One of the main uses of religion historically is community gathering, allowing a sense of connection that would otherwise not be there. Under a well-designed socialist system, the simple act of living amongst others would do what religion often succeeds at doing. As for gays, having a guy sucking my dick doesn't hurt you economically or socially buddy quit being such a faggot.

Rather than the sacred things, the "sacred " itself is abolished when the material conditions are making it unneccessary.

I wish i had the whole quote of Marx's "opiate of the masses" text.

Spooky
Bretty good

...

oooooooooooooooo

Marx and all the bourgeois capitalist sellouts who still talk about him.

This is a core tenet of Buddhism that was later adopted into nihilist existentialism, which was later incorporated into progressivism.

With less marriage and less kids there is less variety in society.

Look faggot!
If you want to be religious, fine, but don't expect the state to pay for your priest or for everyone to "respect" your spooks.

you're all faggots holy shit

You can but certain religions are very hierarchal and exploitive to the point of being predatory.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

No it doesn't. Fuck off.

Or happy people are more religious than unhappy people…

...

If you have a stampede of bulls coming towards two guys, one fully aware of it and the other is in denial, the guy in denial is probably happier than the guy who's aware of it, but that doesn't make denial the healthier attitude.

Doesn't mean we should forcibly remove religion. Let it die out naturally if it will.

I wouldn't say "dumb" in the normal sense of having an all around low intelligence but when it comes to matters of fact vs fiction, then yes they're dumb. There are plenty of PhDs and MDs who don't accept evolution or anthropocentric climate change. And there are plenty of otherwise mentally retarded people who can see right through religion's bullshit. Human intelligence can be pretty modular.

Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

Well, capitalism of course. Everything must be offered on the market as a commodity because the market regulates social relations now.

Science is as much a religion as Christianity, with its own ideology and rituals (including the rituals of truth-production), and it is much more hegemonic that Christianity ever was (the latter had no globalized society of the spectacle and omnipresent regulation to rely on).
And even though I mostly hate Christianity at least some of its forms (like the Franciscan monastic order) were closer to actual, radical communism put in practice than a lot of what the self-proclaimed communists say and do. And Christianity still had a sense of spirituality, although a very perverted one, while today we're just vessels and relays of the consumer society.
I shit on today's western "values" that call for a destruction of all values.

kek

Yes we can, as socialism implies worker political control and therefore voting rights.
And the only way to have effective democratic control is through freedom of thought and argument.

It can be for many people.
"Properly" executed science is one thing,
Where as dogmatic trust in the predominant scientific method is another.