Fuck it, give me the estrogen goa’uld

Three reasons:

Childcare costs is very expensive now and also largely individualized

The actual way we raise children is very individualized and intensive putting a massive burden on parents

The future is very uncertain. Before, people had to worry about war and exploitation, now we have that and WMDs, climate change, fascism, and whatever other technological horrors we manage to create

Sure, I agree! It is a very human centric approach to viewing the world.

I would say that I believe that we are special because we can have a different type of relation to ourselves, to each other, to the world, and to the divine than other animals (atheisticly, this might be just imaginary, but still special that we are able to, no?). I mean isn’t it a little intriguing that humans is the only species line which has these traits? I guess I just feel like it is an awful lot of random chance if it is all random

EDIT: Or to put it in another way, isn’t it peculiar that the dialectical development of the universe has included humans, us, beings capable of understanding it? I can’t get a grasp of why it has worked out that way without approaching it from a faith perspective.

Fair point!

I might say that more strictly, it observably reduces the scope of which we know that a hypothetical outside power chooses to act upon the world in our time. Of course, if you spend all your life looking for unicorns, but never find one, it is perfectly reasonable to think they don’t exist, so I understand your point.

By equating science with metaphysics, you are elevating Occam’s Razor to an universal metaphysical qualifier to select the least presumptive explanation as the truest explanation - that is of course very useful in science, and also a very fair metaphysical standpoint to take. It’s just not “provable” in a strict sense that this “best theory” is necessarily metaphysically “true”, as the scientific method does not really attempt to define “metaphysical truth”, but rather that “this is our most useful model of the truth”. Still, it is fair to assume it is as true as it can be in our time.

I guess I’m trying to say that I think it is perfectly reasonable to not be religious. For me it is more about a personal faith relationship and faith as a “extrarational” mode of thought (ala Kieerkegard). I also find some of the conclusions one might draw from a purely atheist viewpoint a little absurd: A universe exists, possibly the only one, for no known reason and possibly for no reason at all, which we to a large part do not understand the nature of, and which happened to have the exact conditions possible to not just make life on at least one, and possibly only one, planet; and not just life, but human life, and not just human life, human life which can have a subjective experience of connection with the divine, and not just that kind of human life, but us specifically, and everyone we know and everything we do, and that then all this will pass, we will, human life will, all life will, possibly even the possibility of life and advanced structures in the universe - all for no reason at all, lost into nothingness through time. Maybe it’s just my ego, but I don’t find this a satisfactory explanation to why we exist - it seems to me absurd to think that it all just happened to randomly work out that way (sure, if it didn’t, no one would know, but the fact is that we don’t know about an infinite or large amount of other universes with different configurations where we don’t exist, so we are still faced with the problem of existing in the one provably existing universe in which we do exist). I’d rather think that love is the reason and that love even defeats death in the end, but I totally get that not everyone needs to agree.

I am a Christian and a Marxist-Leninist. I don’t think this is a big problem. My practical politics is based on diamat analysis and the study of theory, not idealism. My personal drive is a wish to help create a better world through altering the material conditions here and now, with more space for love to flourish - why does it matter if I am personally motivated by faith in God in addition to just secular love for my fellow humans?

The critique of religion, while it can wary between ML-theorists, usually either rest on a practical opposition to the clergy class (and personally I am just as eager to oppose and stop MAGA megachurch supply-side Jesus christians as I’m sure the bolsheviks were to stop the tsarist orthodox clergy) or a philosophical position (I am sure there is a lot of nuance and things one could get into here, just writing from what I’ve seen when reading. I do not intend to argue against a strawman, just to be brief). Philosophically, it either rests on pure materialism and non-dualism; which is a fair position to take, but which is inherently also an unprovable metaphysical position, and one which I personally disagree with - or on an idea that religion is used to resolve alienation from our limitations in the psyche. I rather think that faith is an innate part of what we are as humans, and even if Marxs critique of religion as a way to counteract alienation of the self, societal progress is still not going to solve the core human issues which faith deals with: interpersonal relations and issues, the meaning of life and existence, growing as human beings, and our meeting with death.

The primary thing to avoid is to let politics be influenced by idealism. Comrade, atheists and agnostics do not automatically avoid this! Racism and other xenophobia, bro science, unexamined belief, imperialism and social chauvinism, liberalism - in many countries today strands of non-religious ideology and thought are problematic just the same as the most problematic expressions of faith. The tendency to idealism is innate in humanity, the matter is to discipline the mind, to be aware of ones biases, to spend the time and effort needed for clear and examined thought, and to think collectively to transcend our individual limits. Comrade, you can do this just as well as anyone else!

In a communist society, with equal access to treatment, and with societal management of equal “improvements” and “sidegrades”, sure, why not use medical technology to improve lives with, IDK, better muscular health into old age or changing your natural hair color or whatever.

The cyberpunk artistic tradition focuses on the effects of augmentation in capitalism as a lens to explore the contradiction between human labour and fixed constant capital in capitalism (and other contradictions in capitalism) by heightening it through moving it into our bodies.

Tell me more about your joke reference to the Eliza chatbot.

What’s next, the moon?

In the Soviet Union, excessive wage leveling, corruption and corrosion caused by the second economy and the failure to crack down on it, and a failure to maintain a living and vivid dialectical materialist science and living practice of constructive critique, in particular in regards to the CPSU and the party line, contributed to the reactionary character of these classes. After the revolution, doing better on these points will help keep these classes more loyal.

As for the revolution, the key is to secure the class power of the proletariat as expressed through mass organizations and the communist party and the proletarian state apparatus. New intelligensia etc. can be grown by public education. Political Commissars can ensure officers and the like stay in line during the revolutionary period. The key is to make opportunists conform to the revolution because it is in their best interest, and to weed out committed reactionaries and remove them from positions of power, and help them all grow past their false conciousness.