religion is the “opium of the masses” - Karl Marx

1. 63

   pisean282311posted 13 years ago

   what do u guys think about karl marx comments?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I was a bigger fan of his brother Groucho
      
      

      replyreport
   2. 54

      (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      In order for communism to be successful, all avenues of a society that were based on the system preceding must change or be eliminated. Since religion is created from a society and is the "mind" of the society, it must be eliminated in order for the society to accept a new "mind" in favor of communism instead of religion. The "consciousness" of the people must be state oriented, not god oriented.
      
      These changes did not just affect the religions, it affects EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the societies and the peoples lives. Of course, believers have this ridiculous notion that communism is only about atheism, demonstrating clearly believers don't know what communism is all about.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         donotfearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well, well now....isn't that special.
         

         replyreport
   3. 63

      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If you include communist and socialist ideology into religions, I agree

      replyreport
   4. 75

      Richieb799posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'd say TV was the Opium personally

      replyreport
2. 80

   LeanManposted 13 years ago

   I agree with Greek, however I had no idea that they had an opium problem... Was Afghanistan still a problem in their days??

   replyreport
   1. 63

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
3. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   mmmmmmmmm, opium..
   
   Homer Simpson

   replyreport
4. 63

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   Say what you want about Marx himself, but his great great grandson Dr. Weil has helped millions battle consitpation and aging
   
   
   
   
   

   replyreport
5. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   
   
   Don't forget his evil twin: DR. Zeius

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And his distant cousin Frederick Douglass
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         And Freddie's son Orson.

         replyreport
6. 63

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   Then there is his less political great great great grandson, Richard Marx
   
   

   replyreport
7. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   This is starting to get biblical...
   
   Imagine that.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      speaking of which...
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 54

         (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That picture was taken right after he dropped the third tablet.

         replyreport
8. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   
   
   Remember Stretch?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      way before my time

      replyreport
9. 83

   donotfearposted 13 years ago

   The true one:
   
   

   replyreport
10. 51

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    Karl Marx was the opium of Skeptics and now they hardly own him or the doings of his followers like Stalin.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Could you please translate that to English?

       replyreport
       1. 63

          Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Perhaps I can help here...
          
          "Karl Marx was the opium of Skeptics"
          
          I believe that what my friend paar is indicating by the above is that the works of Karl Marx were championed by atheists, non-believers and skeptics as much as God is by religious people
          
          "...and now they hardly own him or the doings of his followers like Stalin."
          
          With communism not being as popular anymore, many now disown Marx, as they do failed communist leaders like Stalin who rose to power by using Marxist philosophy and slogans.
          
          
          The bottom line is that Islam spread pecefully through the Soviet Union

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Thank you friend Greek.
             
             I am a peaceful drunken pervert.

             replyreport
             1. 63

                Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                then drink with me as we watch porn...
                
                no compulsion

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Is porn the Viagra of the masses?

                   replyreport
             2. 63

                pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                

                replyreport
          2. 54

             (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I bow to the great appendaged one. No compulsion.

             replyreport
          3. 63

             pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             

             replyreport
       2. 51

          paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Hi friend (Q)
          
          Let it remain in Russian as the English speaking Skeptics don't like to mention him.
          
          Thanks
          
          I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

          replyreport
          1. 57

             Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I see your English is improving Usmanali. You are getting the passive aggressive attacks almost as good as the Kristians.
             
             Peaceful? LOL Not so much.

             replyreport
          2. 54

             (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Just curious, when you make up stuff and post it here, does it align with being a peaceful Muslim or does it create a lot of conflict?

             replyreport
             1. 51

                paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Utltimately it creates peace.
                
                Thanks

                replyreport
                1. 54

                   (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Conflict ultimately creates peace?
                   
                   I might agree, except for the fact that there won't be anyone left to enjoy the peace after the conflict.
                   
                   Who will look out over the pile of dead bodies and proclaim peace?

                   replyreport
11. 80

    earnestshubposted 13 years ago

    Ah yes, peace and Islam! Like the bible!
    
    Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
    
    Qur’an 8:60 “Prepare against them (non-Muslims) whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah (non-Muslims), and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah’s Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you.”
    
    Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels (non-Muslims) out to the last.’”
    
    So much peace and luv!
    
    
    
    I just know you want to see peace from the bible as well.
    
    Kill Brats
    
        From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!"  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.  (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
    
    
    
    God Kills the Curious
    
        And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter.  And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?   (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)
    
    Where would we be without the luv!

    replyreport
    1. 51

       paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Hi friend earnestshub
       
       We have seen that it were the Meccans who in large numbers aggressively attacked Muhammad at and/ or near Medina (please refer to battles of Badr, Uhud, Trench; discussed in separate threads here). It were the Meccans who did not allow freedom of faith to Muhammad and those who converted to his faith while they lived at Mecca. The Meccans persecuted Muhammad and his followers; blockaded them, killed a many, injured a many and when they migrated to far off place; they pursued them and did not live them in peace.
       
       I think you have double standards; you want freedom of choice of faith for you but won't like that it should be allowed to Muhammad and his followers. Are you justified in keeping this double standard only for you animosity towards Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
       
       Thanks
       
       I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

       replyreport
       1. 63

          Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Is freedom to choose one's faith an important part of Islam?
          
          If so, why do the majority of Islamic nations choose to outlaw the worship of other religions?
          
          Why is your own sect so persecuted by Muslims?

          replyreport
       2. 63

          pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          @paar but my friend ..wasn't it muhammad who attacked un suspecting caravan first..granted that meccans made life difficult for first bunch of muslims ..but was attack on caravans justified?..

          replyreport
          1. 51

             paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Hi friend pisean282311
             
             You may like  to apprise yourself of the facts in this connection:
             
             The Meccan Muslims had found a place of refuge in Medina, and they could now openly perform their daily worship of God, together with their brethren of Medina, without hindrance. They appreciated this as a great boon, but in Medina also the Muslims were exposed to many hazards and had to keep constantly on the alert. The Prophet himself, who was responsible for the security not only of the Muslims but of the whole of Medina, and had many more cares added to the discharge of his mission as a Prophet, found little time for sleep or rest. When this became known, the Muslims arranged to mount guard by turns outside his quarters at night so that he could have a few hours of sleep.
             
             Besides the internal problems of Medina and the dangers and hazards confronting the Muslims, and most of all the Prophet himself, a formidable threat was soon added from Mecca.
             When the Meccans learned that the Prophet had arrived safely at Medina and had been joyfully received there by the Muslims and that Islam was making progress among the two Arab tribes there, they resolved to adopt coercive measures to secure his expulsion from Medina. They addressed a letter to Abdullah bin Ubayy, warning him and the people of Medina that if they did not expel the Prophet from the city or, failing that, did not take up arms against him and the Muslims, jointly with the Meccans the Meccans would come with a mighty force and put to the sword all the male adults and enslave all the women.
             
             On receipt of this letter, Abdullah held a secret council of his supporters and proposed that, in view of the Meccan ultimatum, the only course open to them was to force the Prophet and his followers to leave Medina. When news of this reached the Prophet, he went to sec Abdullah and tried to dissuade him from embarking on such a course, pointing out that any such adventure could lead only to his own ruin. For the time being Abdullah forbore, but he never abandoned the hope that an opportunity might arise when he could take measures to rid Medina of the Prophet and the Muslims, and thus secure his own recognition as the chief and ruler of Medina.
             
             Saad bin Muaz, chief of the Aus and a brave and sincere Muslim, visited Mecca about this time to perform the customary circuit of the Ka'aba. He was noticed by Abu Jahl, a Meccan chief and a sworn enemy of the Prophet, who accosted him, asking how he dared come to Mecca to perform the circuit when it was well known that he had once sheltered the Prophet in Medina. Did he not realize that by giving shelter to Muhammad, the people of Medina had earned the enmity of the Meccans and could no longer be permitted to perform the rites and ceremonies connected with the Ka'aba? Saad retorted that if this were the attitude of the Meccans, their caravans plying between Mecca and Syria would no longer enjoy the right of free passage between Medina and the coast.
             
             And so the stage was set for open warfare between the Meccans and the Muslims in Medina.
             
             http://www.alislam.org/library/zafar/exampler.html
             
             It were the Meccans who persecuted Muhammad and those who accepted his faith; they blockaded them for years, punished and wounded and killed many of them and when the tried to migrate from Mecca they even did not allow them to do so.
             
             When ultimately Muhummad's companion migrated to Medina, about 400 kilometers away, and later Muhammad joined them, the Meccans did not rest them there in peace and attacked them aggressively well prepared and in large numbers.
             
             Is Muhammad not entitled to the same freedom of faith as other human beings? If not;why not?
             
             Thanks
             
             I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

             replyreport
             1. 54

                (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Sure he was, but he was not entitled to slaughter anyone who didn't share his beliefs.

                replyreport
                1. 51

                   paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Hi friend (Q)
                   
                   Just name one person he slaughtered at Mecca while he lived there. It were the Meccans who slaughtered and persecuted Muslims at Mecca. Please check it.
                   
                   Thanks
                   
                   I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

                   replyreport
                   1. 63

                      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      How exactly is one to obtain the name of innocent women and children killed hundreds of years ago?  Do you think Muhammad built them a cemetery in memorial??

                      replyreport
                      1. 63

                         pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         it is simple..paar just need to visit following link :
                         
                         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ … _of_Medina

                         replyreport
                   2. 54

                      (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      That is silly in the extreme and only demonstrates just how desperate and what levels the Islamic propagandist will stoop.

                      replyreport
                      1. 63

                         pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         ironically paar's sect is not considered to be islamic by most muslims..and ahamadis are actually peaceful people..their founder believes in debate ..

                         replyreport
                         1. 51

                            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            Yes, discussion, dialogue, arguments, reason, research; all peaceful ways

                            replyreport
12. 60

    theirishobserver.posted 13 years ago

    Great work - must learn how to bring pics into the forums - some great work there people

    replyreport
    1. 63

       pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       i agree...

       replyreport
13. 68

    alternate poetposted 13 years ago

    Clearly the opium is still popular - attacking Marx for describing society in the way we all see it today is ridiculous - Communism was founded on his ideas, as was much of modern economics and political thinking.  He did of course describe how we are all getting ripped off and controlled, those on the prescribed drugs of religion, TV, Fox News, etc, etc, still think they think - and prove by their posts that they don't.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       hmm..

       replyreport
14. 95

    Dolores Monetposted 13 years ago

    I think it was 'opiate of the masses,' and that role these days is TV.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with the whole TV thing.. but I thought it was Opie and the masses??
       
       

       replyreport
       1. 63

          pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          

          replyreport
15. 60

    kephriraposted 13 years ago

    Given the number of people who use recreational drugs compared to the number of people who regularly go to a church / temple etc (at least in Britain anyway) it's probably more accurate to say that opium is the religion of the masses.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       interesting analysis..

       replyreport