Conversion

An issue of translation and grammar.
Technically, he said



However, when taken in proper context, it's meaning is quite different from what you are suggesting. What Marx was saying in this passage is that in Germany of the mid 1800's, the economic and political situation is untenable, and that those in charge are relying on 'religion' as a balm to assuage the suffering of the the oppressed to allow the ruling class to maintain their hold on power. It is not the problem itself, but merely a symptom of more serious underlying economic realities at the time of his writing.

Well, that's my take as one of the unenlightened crowd. Your mileage may vary.

Incidentally, snide insults will not serve you well in a regular discussion.

Yes and ironically 'the state' replaced religion in so many ways.

The full context 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. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions"

There's an interesting discussion of the implications of "opium" in this phrase at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People. I, for one, would not have cared to undergo many medical procedures, or endure many ailments, at the time Marx was writing without recourse to opium and its derivatives.

Well see, if you had read through all the posts you would see that the only real statement I made was in regard to what I would say to some evangalist who came to my door to try and convert me. I've simply been defending that same statement ever since. However, part of what I said was taken out of context and then all the rest of this happened.

I've still been enjoying the debate. It's interesting to see how defensive the people who believe in god have become.

Thanks Innula, I was looking for the full quote but couldn't find it right away. So beautifully phrased, Marx was right about this much, certainly.

Shouldn't it be "how aggressive the people...have become?" I mean, since you are defending and all.

But, a point: How can this be out of context?


The statement is quite clear. "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves". Adding the full quote does not change the nature of that statement. And that statement is the one that began the long series of posts in the current discussion.

Now, now, Imagin. Don't take his word for it. Make your own argument! Think for yourself! *whistles*

I guess that's where we will have to disagree, Jerboa. I believe that the context does make a difference, especially in relation to the question I was answering. I'll not explain it again but you are free to be offended as you wish.



Well, the man happens to share my hypothesis that there is no god. I admire the eloquent way he phrased it.

Except that isn't what he was saying in that essay!

I think it is. What illusion do you think he was referring to?

*chuckles*

Do you think I'm offended? On the contrary, you had the misfortune of finding my Achilles heel in my moment of weakness. I like nothing more than to debate/discuss theology, philosophy, and epistemology with any and all who don't run fleeing from the room.

I have already deciphered that passage for you.

But I'll expound again. The "illusion" referred to here is not the existence of a god. The illusion is of a better place waiting for the people in their next life. He contends that the economic and political structures of his time prevent the proletariat from achieving true happiness in their lifetimes. This is OK, religion says, because true happiness will be found in the next. THAT is the illusion referred to. He is arguing for casting that illusion away, and forcing the people of 1840's Germany to rise up and throw down those who are oppressing them. He want's the people to look for happiness in this life, not endure oppression for the hope of happiness in the next.

To suggest he was referring to God as the illusion in this passage is to completely miss his point.

His issue isn't with god. His issue is with finding the best way to effect true change on Germany. He sees religion as a barrier to that change. The true enemies, to Marx, were economic and political, not religious.

I didn't have that much background on this passage but I do accept your perspective on it. It is actually much more interesting than my original understanding of it.

So you really CAN'T make a single post without insulting people who disagree with you.

It has nothing to do with being "defensive" but thanks for putting the onus all on those who you have continually insulted. Lol

Yes people's backs tend to go up when someone seems to take pleasure in smugly taking aim at what they hold dear. Funny thing, that.

If you had done so with a scintilla of logic or made any sort of solid foundation other than being merely insulting I would not have become annoyed. Actually I was going to IM you in world to apologise in case any of this had been uncomfortable or upsetting but then you came in this morning even more snide than before. *That's* when I became annoyed, not before.

It isn't the first time I've run across someone who attacks others' beliefs while never even revealing their own.

Again, "taken out of context" or not, doesn't matter; your statement that I and OTHERS have responded to - attempting at first to engage you in logical debate, being met with derision in return - was so strong it stands on its own. Also, it has nothing to do with the op asking if anyone had encountered religious people in second life. A video game.

Which might be the opiate of the masses, come to think of it...

P.S. to Innula. He ALSO was presupposing the people were somehow rendered feeble minded by spirituality. We all know by now, the Communist state did SO much better serving the people they had set free from that horrible tyranny hope and faith provide. *snerk*

That actually is an artifact of 20th century communist interpretations. Marx harshly criticized religion, yes. But he empathized with the religious. He believed that if he could create a new structure with better economic conditions for all, then people would have no need for what he saw as a religious security blanket and cast it off of their own accord.

In fact, in the same essay, he talks about Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.



Marx recognized what Luther had accomplished. He viewed himself as taking the next step and casting off the chains of the heart. To Marx, Protestantism was not the proper solution, but it was a step along the path. Marx intended his efforts to be the next step.

Marx's relationship with religion is more complex than many might suppose.

Was he? You are doubtless more familiar with the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right than am I -- not difficult, it has to be said, and it's years since I had to read it -- but my -- admittedly cloudy -- recollection of it was pretty much that summarised by Jerboa Haystack.

I wasn't, by the way, quoting Marx because I necessarily agree with him about much but because, as Jerboa suggests, his argument is a lot more complex than a striking phrase, taken out of context and used as a slogan, might lead one to think.

Communism has never been tried outside of very small groups... nothing so large as a state.

But did those groups go door to door trying to convert you? And how would you respond?

(Had to fit the OP back in somehow you know! )

First place I lived in the US was Berkeley, CA.

Melita, I don't take this personally and hope you don't either but you seem to be stretching pretty far to be insulted here, in my opinion.



I haven't been asked my own beliefs, nor do I intend to discuss them here in this obviously open & accepting group (sarcasm intended). There hasn't been any discussion over whether there is a god or not, just whether or not I am arrogant to think that it is irrational for people to hypothesize that there is. My statement that "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves" is what I said I would say to someone who tried to convert me to his religion. It's not the broad statement that it has been made out to be since. But I agree, it is there in plain print for all to see.

Innula - I never said nor assumed you agree with Marx.

Argent - going to get into semantics?

Imagin - doesn't shock me at all you have no clue how insulting you have been. I'm not the only one to have pointed out your snide demeanor, either. But I've already said that you seem to point blame outward - on the reaction of others being wrong, not your actual insults.

I must be slipping. Didn't realise feeble minded, sheep like and such were compliments. But what can I say to someone who denies she just said what is there in print? I give up on that one. Your retorts are along the lines of "nuh UH!"

And your token insult per post:



*fake applause*

Also not true - I have not seen anyone lob the same types of ridicule at those of differing beliefs, as you have.



Oh is that how badly you've misconstrued what we've been saying?

Your tone and manner are arrogant perhaps. Beliefs themselves are not arrogant. And you've ridiculed belief in God enough that it amounts to a statement against it. But there you go denying what you've said, again. You could say you meant something else but you really do not even try to do that. You just layer it over with a new statement and more ridicule.

I especially liked the glee you seemed to take in assuming you'd upset people. (not.)



You have to THINK and BELIEVE that to SAY that to anyone. (Or to quote yourself saying it here.) Gahhhhh. LOL.

I give up...

Pie, anyone!?

Arrgggghhh indeed. Forget the lions - save me from the Christians!

Could you please show me where I said feeble minded or sheep like? Others have said that, not me. I call you people who believe in god or people who hypothesize there is a god. PC and all, you know.

That might have been what you meant, but it isn't what you said. If you look at your words impartially, "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves" isn't stated as a message intended to be delivered, but instead is presented as a reason upon which the visit would be welcomed. Semantic arguments, to be sure, but also the prime reason your post received the reaction it did.

Besides, since there are no qualifiers in them, they are broad statements, regardless of whether those words are a personal philosophy, or delivered message. Ghosty pointed this out, and you stood by the original statement.

The debate has certainly not dwelled on arrogance, although it has been touched on. While the existence of God has not been debated, irrationality has, and whether the question can be dealt with scientifically certainly has.

Lastly, I'm actually impressed by the overall tone of the thread. Most threads on this topic, on this board or others, tend to quickly dissolve into bickering flame wars and trading of insults. As religiously-focused threads go, this one has been very "open and accepting". Brianna tried to provoke me with the Flying Spaghetti Monster line, which I ignored. You were accused of being arrogant, and condescending, and have made a few passing remarks questioning the intelligence of those who hold religious beliefs. Otherwise very little 'drama' has happened.

Oh why not. Here you go.