rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Your 'karmic beliefs', for want of a better phrase, will be proved right or wrong as time goes by because they are rooted in real life. You're not hoping (presumably) that people will get their just desserts in heaven or hell when they die, but at some future point in the physical world. Your beliefs may or may not prove to be correct. There will no doubt be a statistical model for this kind of thing.It's a bit like football managers saying that luck balances out over a season. They may or may not be proved correct when the season is over (and no doubt, the ones who feel they've had more than their share of bad luck will find all sorts of scapegoats – referees, the fixture list, etc.)Of course, that begs the question whether the statistics involved are just a way of formalising the underlying karma…
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lets try this. If we held a vote on this board, and declared Lbird's positions to be wrong, what would be their response? Would they acfcept the democratic verdict of their peers, or would they stick to their guns, as an obstinate minority. I think we all know the answer: the the question becomes, why swhould anyone in socialism behave any differently?Would any of us be qualified to vote?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps this article might provoke further debatehttp://www.alternet.org/belief/scientific-journal-tries-prove-belief-innate-and-failsI like this sentence:'Humans continue to evolve and the processes that brought about our superstitious nature may no longer serve a purpose.'
According to Wikipedia, the translation of what Marx said is:"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".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_peopleI assume he wasn't using the word 'soul' in a religious sense.
ParamjeetWhat happened to the questions? Just when I thought you were taking an interest in what we're saying on this website, about common ownership of the world's resources, you post yet another example of your own decidedly non-socialist agenda.Your 'Law and Justice' manifesto says nothing about the class-based nature of capitalist society and proposes no alternative to the capitalist system. That's what this website is about – the abolition of capitalism, and along with it all of its legal system, which is essentially about property and exists to enforce rule by a minority elite. What do you think of that, or aren't you going to tell us?
Meanwhile, in the film industry, Penelope Cruz and her husband are being accused of anti-semitism for denouncing the Israeli actions.
We should get t-shirts made with that on incorporating the names of all the major political parties. Might win us more converts than actually arguing our case!
I'll have to fish out my dad's copy and give it another read too.It makes me hark back to the 70s and to the then newly formed West Yorkshire branch. I had just become a socialist and Robert Barltrop came to Bradford to speak at one of our first meetings. Harry Young, who we are told is the chap on the cover, also came up north on a separate occasion and stayed over at our house.
Some good stuff there.At one point Christina makes the point that evolution has led to human brains that are capable of amazement, and are inclined to be amazed at the complexity of life. Or as Dawkins put it, we look at the world through purpose-coloured spectacles.Playing devil's advocate though, a believer in God might say that the human brain is not developed enough to appreciate God's role in the whole affair (a variation on the theme 'God moves in mysterious ways').I also think that arguments pointing to the lack of evidence of a god are beside the point – believers don't need evidence, they have their belief.
Hi ParamjeetI'm glad to see you've started asking us questions. Keep them coming – and in case you've missed it, here's a link to our FAQ page, which may answer some of them (and, hopefully, lead to more).http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/faq
ParamjeetYou're not telling us much about what you think of the socialist point of view as set out on this website.Maybe you should take a bit of time out to study what we're saying and then ask questions. Simply making your own lengthy assertions, saying thanks for the comments, then opening another thread and doing the same again doesn't give me any idea how far you've got in understanding the case for real socialism: a classless, moneyless, leaderless, worldwide society based on common ownership of the world's resources.It's got nothing to do with greedy people, or with 'good' or 'bad' people in government. We don't need governments.What do you think about that?
For 'socialism' read 'state capitalism' and it could be true for all we know. It isn't anti-socialist in our terms, and I'm sure we wouldn't want to be defending the regimes the article calls socialist. Nevertheless, we're bound to get tarred by the same brush.
Vin Maratty wrote:Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html At least most of them turn into adults who can distinguish fact from fiction. With the exception of their religious beliefs, of course. Amazing how many people can suspend their disbelief on a Sunday.If you look at the Gallup data though, at least the percentage of non-believers in the US is gradually growing, though it's only at 15%.
