The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Northern Light has spoken and she neither lied nor suggested reformism. To refer to her as a reformist and a liar is offensive
northern light wrote:, till one day, while waiting to ascend from the coal-mine where I worked,Hello everyone,I think you will find we never had women working down the mines, in my lifetime, so that takes care of my gender
ALB wrote:Even in the 18th century teenage girls were caught faking this.ALB, I was just making reference to the explanation you gave Robbo for the explanation of poltergist activity. I was attempting to bring a touch of humour to the thread, and not infering that I was female
zundap wrote:If there are are all these commited religious socialists out there, why have they not formed their own organisation, or organisations to allow for their differing belief systems?Hello Zundap,I think the answer to that may lie in section 7 of ” Our Object and Declaration of Principles………. the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.
Ed wrote:Northern Light has admitted that she has no intention of joining the party and lied about her views in order to test our reaction. She then goes on to criticise us for not campaigning for reforms. I think that closes the case on whether a form A is required.Ed, What I said was, “I can not, will not apply to join the SPGB.Please do not misquote me. The party does not allow entry on religious grounds, so I can not, will not, simple as that.There was a time, if you had told me I was a liar, to my face, you would have been on your hands and knees picking up teeth. I am older and more mellow now, but I still find a remark like that offensive. I have never been in the habit of lying, so if I have made an error, that is all it will be, and I will hold my hand up, and admit it, but, come on, spring your trap!Where do you get this notion that I mentioned reforms, the SPGB is not a reform party. Again you are putting words in my mouth.I posted a list, and said, “These are just a sample of some of the issues in the public domain. The working class is looking for answers, and it is not finding those answers in main-stream politics.”If you are going to play games with me, at least try dealing with a straight deck.
gnome wrote:As some of us had suspected from the outset. But here’s the sting in the tail………[…..]Something is amiss alright; could it remotely have something to do with her reluctance and that of millions of other workers to abandon the reformist road? No prizes for quessing that one. We “need to increase the membership” but they’re buggered if they’ll do anything to assist the process.Gnome,I’m a 64 year old ex miner with a broken body, but a mind that still works. I was introduced to the SPGB by my dear departed friend, Bobby Gleghorn. I have attended a few talks (too few) and bought and read a lot of Standards. I sow the seeds of the party, as and when I can, please do not insult me, by suggesting I am a reformist. I simply inferred that your approach to the workers is not working.
To Northern Light.Thank you for that clarification comrade. Tho’ it wasn’t needed as your previous posts said it all.
When two people have a conversation without even thinking about it they enter into an agreement. That agreement is, that whoever is speaking must express themselves in a way which gives the other party the best chance of reaching a clear understanding of what is being said. While the other party agrees to try to interpret what is being said as best they can with the information they receive. As the conversation goes back and forth the positions switch. This is the essence of all human communication in any language. Now you are accusing me of not living up to my side of our unspoken agreement. But what did I have to work with?I askedBut I would ask Northern Light why he feels this is a religious issue and not a scientific one?You replyHi Ed,I thought this had been put to bed by ALB. I was a naughty, attention seeking girl, who made the whole thing up. ( sorry ALB, just couldn’t resist it. ) Anyway, I reckon my story is of no importance, the debate has reached it’s climax.What can I conclude from this other than that you don’t have an answer because you were, in your own words making it up.You then go on to sayWhen I opened this discussion, I had an agenda, ( nothing sinister, I assure you ), and I think all of my questions have been answered, quite eloquently, by the percipients.So you had an agenda, how should I interpret that in the context of the last thing you’ve said?Now here’s where I was at fault.One might say it is of little importance. I would say the membership issue is more relevant now, than any other time in the Party’s existence, not just for people who have a religious slant, but per se. Global Warming…………. is it, or isn’t it ?The war crimes of Bush and Blair, and their croniesThe world-widw recessionThe corruption of elected politiciansCorporate greedThe errosion of care for the agedThe sabotage of the N.H.S.The meddling with children’s educationThe savage repugnant attacks on the sick and vunerableThe deliberate attacks on the Muslem societyThe attempts to fragment the Public sector, by restructuring payMoving capital and jobs to the Far East, then calling our workers, lazy spongers on the State, for not finding jobsRestricting Internet freedom. These are a sample of issues in the public domain, and the Working Class, is looking for answers, and not finding them in main-stream politics.I came to the wrong conclusion here. For two reasons. A) You’ve just said you were making it up as you had an agenda
It seemed that you were saying that we should campaign on single issues.Now you accuse me of intentionally breaking the unspoken agreement in order to set you up as you imagine I have some grievance or grudge against you. I had in fact said two or three times earlier that in my opinion your views should not prohibit you joining the party. So I ask you what do you imagine is my motivation for wanting to “set traps”? Is it not more likely that it is you who is at fault for not explaining yourself in a way where neither Gnome or I could understand your intended meaning? Now I appreciate humor is incredibly difficult in conversation over the internet. So much of being able to tell when someone is joking or not is down to facial expression, tone of voice and body language. That’s why in this medium I always find it better to answer a straight question with a straight answer. Otherwise you end up with a breakdown in communication and misunderstanding like the one we have now.But saying that, I think I got this jokeIf you are going to play games with me, at least try dealing with a straight deck.Irony, right?Ed wrote:When two people have a conversation without even thinking about it they enter into an agreement. That agreement is, that whoever is speaking must express themselves in a way which gives the other party the best chance of reaching a clear understanding of what is being said. While the other party agrees to try to interpret what is being said as best they can with the information they recieve. As the conversation goes back and forth the positions switch. This is the essence of all human communication in any language. Now you are accusing me of not living up to my side of our unspoken agreement. But what did I have to work with?I askedBut I would ask Northern Light why he feels this is a religious issue and not a scientific one?You replyHi Ed,I thought this had been put to bed by ALB. I was a naughty, attention seeking girl, who made the whole thing up. ( sorry ALB, just couldn’t resist it. ) Anyway, I reckon my story is of no importance, the debate has reached it’s climax.What can I conclude from this other than that you don’t have an answer because you were, in your own words making it up.You then go on to sayWhen I opened this discussion, I had an agenda, ( nothing sinister, I assure you ), and I think all of my questions have been answered, quite eloquently, by the percipients.So you had an agenda, how should I interpret that in the context of the last thing you’ve said?Now here’s where I was at fault.One might say it is of little importance. I would say the membership issue is more relevant now, than any other time in the Party’s existence, not just for people who have a religious slant, but per se. Global Warming…………. is it, or isn’t it ?The war crimes of Bush and Blair, and their croniesThe world-widw recessionThe corruption of elected politiciansCorporate greedThe errosion of care for the agedThe sabotage of the N.H.S.The meddling with children’s educationThe savage repugnant attacks on the sick and vunerableThe deliberate attacks on the Muslem societyThe attempts to fragment the Public sector, by restructuring payMoving capital and jobs to the Far East, then calling our workers, lazy spongers on the State, for not finding jobsRestricting Internet freedom. These are a sample of issues in the public domain, and the Working Class, is looking for answers, and not finding them in main-stream politics.I came to the wrong conclusion here. For two reasons. A) You’ve just said you were making it up as you had an agenda It seemed that you were saying that we should campaign on single issues.Now you accuse me of intentionally breaking the unspoken agreement in order to set you up as you imagine I have some grievance or grudge against you. I had in fact said two or three times earlier that in my opinion your views should not prohibit you joining the party. So I ask you what do you imagine is my motivation for wanting to “set traps”? Is it not more likely that it is you who is at fault for not explaining yourself in a way where neither Gnome or I could understand your intended meaning? Now I appreciate humor is incredibly difficult in conversation over the internet. So much of being able to tell when someone is joking or not is down to facial expression, tone of voice and body language. That’s why in this medium I always find it better to answer a straight question with a straight answer. Otherwise you end up with a breakdown in communication and misunderstanding like the one we have now.But saying that, I think I got this jokeIf you are going to play games with me, at least try dealing with a straight deck.Irony, right?Is that an apology?
As far as I’m concerned there is no need for an apology from either side. It is a misunderstanding. He says he’s not a liar then I believe him I’ve no reason not to. But if someone says they’re making things up then what am I to think? I accept that he was joking and he’s explained what he meant. We now, hopefully understand each other and as far as I’m concerned the issue is resolved with no ill feeling from me.
That’s very big of you. No ill feeling from me comrade.
Beginning of joke:”I have reported to my superiors and I have informed them that this so called revolutionary party is of no threat whatsoever to the present world economic political order.”End of joke.I am reminded of the school playground when I was a child, someone says something and a whole host of tit for tat retaliation spews forth, so and so said this etc etc.Northern Light really opened a can of worms here and I am saddened to say my concerns regarding the state of the party are still the same since I left just over ten years ago.A mind set!This stuff reads like any other forum I have briefly visited on a number of subjects from music to current affairs.I smell fear, fear of change, fear of loss of control. Better to stay an archive group, keep the flame burning for the future generations than to try new approaches. I met it at branch level.The Declaration of Principles are of utmost importance it declares the party aim. Socialism.How we get from here to socialism is not contained in the principles, that is up to us.We have to move with the times, appeal to an ever changing world. Be willing to alter approaches. Bickering like children will not achieve this, it is more likely to put people off.I expect this will raise a few hackles, but before I receive the inevitable torrent of rebuttals. Ask yourself, are you sure we can’t do better?The time is now!
Oh and by the way!I’ve been critical of Jonathan for thinking humans are instinctually aggressive.Looking at some of the stuff being said on this topic, maybe he has a point?
ALB wrote:No, but that’s not what I said. I said have a rational approach to things, ie history, society, solving problems, etc. You’re just making a cheap debating point by playing on words. .No, you don’t get it at all. Everybody has a “rational approach to things” but equally everybody is subject to irrational impulses – you , me, members of the SPGB and religious applicants to the SPGB. Your whole argument is based on a completely false premiss. You don’t – you can’t!!! – ensure that people have only a “rational approach ” to things in the Party by blocking entry to supposedly irrational religious applicants. This kind of “trojan horse” argument against the case for reforming the entry requirements is manifestly false because1) you cannot say a religious person is not “rational”. Period2) you cannot say that you and other members of the SPGB are not “irrational”. PeriodI repeat – – we are all an admixture of both these things You emphasise the need for a “rational approach” to things like history, society , solving problems etc. But how we view history, for example, is very much bound up with our value system. What we call history is not some kind of objective process which simply goes on “out there” to which we supposedly relate as “objective”observers. It necessarily involves a process of subjective interpretation – for example in the very selection of the historical facts that we deem significant. We select these facts in accordance with our values and preconceptions which – inevitably – we mostly take for granted and in doing so behave “irrationally”Its one reason why I am very ambivalent about the use of the term “scientific materialism” because it is potentially highly misleading. It ignores what is called the problem of “reflexivity “in sociology/ anthropology. We are part of the very thing that we are supposedly “observing” – society. Its not comparable to a situation where we have group of white coated scientists hanging around monitoring some laboratory experiment.Actually, as a matter of fact, the Observer Effect is even evident in the realm of the natural sciences. Perhaps you with your obsession with paranormal phenomena might want to explain something even wackier which developments in quantum physics have brought to light. See for example this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm. To me as a non-physicist this is just simply bizarre beyond words and yet one must trust the scientists that such a thing actually happens. There – another example of me being irrational perhaps! But in that case so is everybody else
ALB wrote:. But what is religion without the idea of a god that intervenes in the lives of human beings? The Epicureans didn’t contest that the gods existed somewhere in the ether but denied that they had any influence on human affairs and so didn’t need worshipping or placating. Were they religious?Yes of course they were religious. The fact that you don’t have the gods intervening does not mean they are not accorded a supernatural existence. There is also the troubling phenomenon of pantheism too in which the idea of intervention does not really make much sense since it implies a separation of god and his/her/its creation in the first place. The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by Peter Russell, a physicist, in his book “From Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”. The fact that a beam of electrons is actually affected by. or seems to respond to, the mere act of observing it , would seem to imply a very crude kind of sentience of some sort. How else do you explain it? . For myself, I couldn’t begin to comment because I am simply not familiar with the detailed arguments but it does suggest the world may be a far more weird and wacky place than your old-fashioned pre-Einsteinian “scientific materialists” could ever have imagined. Hence the need to keep an open mind – always
ALB wrote:I don’t think a Conference resolution would be required to admit Lucretius to the party. His reputation as a metaphysical materialist precedes him.This is not really the point is it. You said Northern Light was twice welcomed to apply for membership of the Party. You said this knowing full well that Northern light had expressed a belief in the idea of a creator. So unless you are playing some kind of cynical game here, this can only mean that you think belief in a creator is compatible with membership of the SPGB. I am asking you -is it ? If it is not why then did you suggest Northern Light apply for membership when that would require a conference resolution to change the entry requirements to the Party?
ALB wrote:That’s what they say, but “scientism” is a perjorative term which nobody would claim for themselves. Looking it up I see it’s said to reject all “metaphysical” claims. You can’t have it both ways: we can’t be metaphysical materialists and scientists. And, since we’re having a pub debate (at the moment still inside it), what other sources of knowledge do you think there is apart from empirically-based science? Religion perhaps?No this is sheer bunkum . “Scientism” might be loosely described as the over-reliance or overemphasis on science and the scientific method as a means to knowledge. Where did you get the idea that this is “said to reject all metaphysical claims” (a link would be appreciated). Metaphysics is conventionally defined as that branch of philosophy to do with the ultimate nature of reality. Everyone has a metaphysical standpoint – a taken for granted framework within which they view the world around them . Metaphysical materialism is one such kind of framework, dualism is another and philosophical idealism is yet another. You cannot avoid having a metaphysical point of view and in that sense it is fully compatible with scientism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.