"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change

[Kuu]

"For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. 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. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

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."

 

[Black Rose]

Without looking for what form is matriculate for how do we change what we do not understand although that which is the creative force has the face of what is desired. The only change that could be rescinded in what has no apatite when conditioned we search for the alleviation of weakness. It appeals to a base nature to project force without direction, the personal holistic acquisition of life to be known as to transcend into what is semantic of perpetuated redundancy in order to last. To stimulate needs for the compelled overturn of melancholy. Having fraught with the ordained no stability is lost counter to when we in spirit confine nothing out of reach for dilection. Is ours really for the better? Can the deconstruction of looking into the repulsed pedagogy counter attachment to wasted effort. I replete that seeking accomplishment holds only to the susceptible esteem of kinship to intention to provoke response in others. For what ideals should be implemented in absence of forgone response to the sake of the ephemeral.

 

[addictedartist]

This reminds me of how women react to violence yet dont mind having their head stuffed in a pillow.

 

[QuickTwist]

If I understand this right, Kuu, where does that leave us in any endeavor that does not involve religion? Are we to simply accept that the governments of the peoples are to rule through religion in a false sense of truth? This would make people who do not adhere to religious practice utterly defenseless against both those who take religion as that opium and the state who goes about its way with enforcing things through a coherence of following laws that only adapt to push its own agenda. Now I'm not trying to outright say that you are wrong, only to point out that with a power like religion at the government's side how are those who do not practice end up as not an enemy of the state?

Ofc my reading comprehension is not too good so I very well could have misinterpreted the whole point of what you said

[Edit] Upon a reread I think I understand what you are saying. I think the real question is how do we make this transition from following religion to understanding what the state is saying and accept that it is that which needs to be to our benefit and not to our determent? I do not see a world any time soon where people will share views unanimously. How is the state to govern knowing there would be a disparity of views amongst the people? Will the people catch on to this and want to implement their own laws not at the hands of the government officials, but at the hands of the people living under the government?

[Edit 2] I understand it will be a slow change. There is a slight possibility that it will also be a radical one. It will (and is) happen(ing) as this is discussed here. There is a powerful push to rid the world of religion from those who hold themselves in his esteem of science and philosophy. Those who know both are best equipped to deal with this change and it is my hope that those who wish to see this change who fall into this category are at the forefront of this charge. It will not be easy and I think certain places in the world will take much more time than others to acclimate to the new system where objectiveness and openness rule and are not hindered by judgemental persons who would wish to delay this change. We are verging on openness to a degree that we have not seen before on this earth. I believe this change is starting at the educational level: those who are and seek out knowledge are always the first to change. After that it will be people who may not be educated, but have heard from the educated and have the reason within them to be accepting of change. It also starts with the youth. Soon enough persons of every creed and background will see the reason in this and it will be the next big step in understanding of the world and evolution.

 

[Cognisant]

In these modern times we turn away from religion and its impotent gods to marvel in our own seemingly exponential magnificence, Stephan Hawking is the pope, computers are our alters and Facebook posts are our prayers.

Nothing has changed really, the zeitgeist brought a new enlightenment but the people are still as blind as ever.

Still that Deadpool movie was pretty good, so there's that.

 

[Reluctantly]

^ I keep hearing that. The trailer looked kind of lame, but it should be a movie I'd like.

 

[TBerg]

For he Western world, Marxism is at once both narcissistic and dehumanizing. It supposes that there are separate classes for whom their conflict is the ultimate cause of all of their suffering.

In life, there are always those of us who are able to rise to the top in a meritocratic fashion, per the examples of Marco Rubio and Abraham Lincoln. What the lessening of the stratification means is that it requires less effort to attain the positions of these great individuals. It means, in practice, that the most wretched desires of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy are placed at the top of the agenda, meaning that the most noble impulses are thrown into the dustbin of history, along with our well-cultivated spiritual traditions.

Thus we see how, if we follow the course of the modern development, that Marxism throws open the door of the narcissism regarding our most base impulses. We can see how, if we look at our pornography and our social media and our entertainment, our tongues are spoiled by the spiritual opium and instinctual candy. Our intestinal fortitude is thereby putrid and full of the excrement of a declining civilization.

 

[Intolerable]

@Kuu, I would say that existing in the what was, rather than the what is, arouses a sense of mysticism.

That mysticism is the foundation of God faith.

If we existed in the what is mysticism would no longer exist. We could explain everything at the point of origin. It's a complex arrangement of distance, time and individual interpretation. We're ultimately limited by it.

I think God faith has become less interesting to more people because technology has done an impressive job of bridging the gap between the what was and the what is. We still have a lot of work to do in that regard however.