Not religion, just morals.  Religion is basically the antithesis of science.  Blind faith that is unprovable.

Morals you can run studies that can prove what is good or bad for a civilization.  Don't need religion to play that role anymore.


We should play chess one day,  I was fairly good way back in highschool.  Was the top of my small school.

big fish, small pond...

Found this interesting.

“ Marx’s actual words regarding religion deserve reflection. My best translation of those words is as follows: “Religion is the opium of the people. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.”

Overall, Marx is speaking not as a man of faith but rather as a secular humanist. However, he does appear to suggest a largely positive role religion could play in an exploitative and alienating society. Human beings have the distressing habit of killing one another because of religious differences, and some of our most religious citizens wear the biggest of blinders. But Marx is right that our society can use a “heart” and a “soul” wherever we might find it.”

https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/

Karl Marx created the blueprint for achieving Communism.

Communism has failed every single time it's been tried.

I don't find anything Marx thought "interesting."

He saw religion as a means to help accomplish the move to Socialism, and eventually Communism, even though religion itself was not accepted in his ideology. 

Marx "stole" the concept "I am my brother's keeper" and incorporated it into his Manifesto.  The entire foundation of Communism is based on the importance of the collective, with the individual wants and needs being less important.  The "brother's keeper" parable is a very familiar and important aspect of Christianity.  The more you align Communism with the moral duties already taught in religion, the more palatable Communism becomes.  The comfort level associated with adopting something new increases if the new thing is patterned after something you're already comfortable with.

I don't find anything Marx thought "interesting."

He saw religion as a means to help accomplish the move to Socialism, and eventually Communism, even though religion itself was not accepted in his ideology. 

Marx "stole" the concept "I am my brother's keeper" and incorporated it into his Manifesto.  The entire foundation of Communism is based on the importance of the collective, with the individual wants and needs being less important.  The "brother's keeper" parable is a very familiar and important aspect of Christianity.

Because your mind is closed.
Upon reading, looks like you found some of Marx writings interesting.
He makes good points in the quote I posted.

I’m not a communist or marxist. Heck I’m not even a socialist. Heck I’m not even a Democrat but wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m a Republican.
But when someone makes interesting points, they are interesting points.

Religion is the opiate of the people.
But is not bad because it gives them hope, heart and soul.
They can live in the misery and suffering but also get through tragic times and keep hope.

My interpretation.
I’m not evaluating communism.
This isn’t a political thread.

A majority of people on the PLANET believe in God. 

All major religions are monotheistic. 

Even more believe religion has a beneficial purpose in society.

Sounds like a consensus.  According to you, that's no different than "science".

A consensus of idiots is still a bunch of idiots.  Consensus of subject matter experts is what counts.

ok, now that you have finally said it (semi) clearly, morals should be (in your opinion) or are based on science?

Got "distracted". . . anyways I think connection made, but still deflecting. . .

Hands can't hit what your eyes don't see, float like a butterfly and sting like a bee

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Moving tahget. . .

big fish, small pond...

Must be from super small pond.  Talking in circles. . .

A consensus of idiots is still a bunch of idiots.  Consensus of subject matter experts is what counts.

Who’s the subject matter experts on the science of morals ?
And what did they find our morals should be?

Rape. Good for procreation?
Murder. Good for population control?
Robbery/stealing. Good. Re-distributes wealth?
Incest. OK once, maybe twice, but too many generations bad as in-breeding ? 
Etc.

Who’s the subject matter experts on the science of morals ?
And what did they find our morals should be?

Rape. Good for procreation?
Murder. Good for population control?
Robbery/stealing. Good. Re-distributes wealth?
Incest. OK once, maybe twice, but too many generations bad as in-breeding ? 
Etc.

Well, the Courts, of course!

Or no, is it scientists? 

Wait, no, dammit, I'm confused now. . .

Because your mind is closed.
Upon reading, looks like you found some of Marx writings interesting.
He makes good points in the quote I posted.

So, you read minds now?  Is this a recent talent, or have you always been able to tell other people what they think?

 

I took several quarter-length classes in High School on Russia and Socialism.  Not something I find "interesting".  Just facts.

Who’s the subject matter experts on the science of morals ?
And what did they find our morals should be?

Rape. Good for procreation?
Murder. Good for population control?
Robbery/stealing. Good. Re-distributes wealth?
Incest. OK once, maybe twice, but too many generations bad as in-breeding ? 
Etc.

To my knowledge no comprehensive studies have been done.  As flapp pointed out most of the world are religious so they force those morals on others.

Could there be a subject matter expert on the science of morals ?
Determine what our morals should be based on the scientific method ?

What about the bottom questions from the prior post which you actually started pages ago.?
With the theory that rape could be morally good based on science.

Direct questions.
Or are you gonna pull a Flapp ?

Got "distracted". . . anyways I think connection made, but still deflecting. . .
Moving tahget. . .

Moving goalposts!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Moving goalposts!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Never got to my piece de resistance. . . I was gearing up for it, even with tweedle dee (CMO) and tweedle dum (macsak) distracting me. . . 

To my knowledge no comprehensive studies have been done.  As flapp pointed out most of the world are religious so they force those morals on others.

is that proven in a court of law? consensus?

Never got to my piece de resistance. . . I was gearing up for it, even with tweedle dee (CMO) and tweedle dum (macsak) distracting me. . . 

focus

focus

#needmorefreetime
#droppingadeucetakesonlysolong

is that proven in a court of law? consensus?

Have you seen the laws?  The official government things that has the word "god" in it.

:facepalm:

Have you seen the laws?  The official government things that has the word "god" in it.

so now you are saying morals = laws?
goalposts are moved again...

Another 5 pages, coming up. . .