Pokies Meaning Religion Is The Opiate

We are the ones who create values, meaning systems and norms to guide us.

Important that you frequently The Pokies Opiate Religion Meaning Is Coast

We no longer ground our meaning-systems or institutions in sources external to ourselves. But while asserting this, Habermas takes the unusual step of arguing that the religious lexicon may contain intuitions and ideas that could inform our sensibility as we walk on our own. The youthful Marx wanted humanity to revolve around itself: These words—remembrance, hope, redemption and utopia—are still needed in the lexicon of Left Humanism.

really

The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: You can follow her on Twitter , Facebook , and Instagram.

Fearless Muckraking Since September 11, Opium of the People? Liberating reason from the church of positivism The Frankfurt School founded in as an inter-disciplinary institute to study the emancipatory possibilities of the time intellectuals worked within a dual framework. Join the debate on Facebook. Jon Rynn More Power to the Workers: The Political Economy of Seymour Melman. Thomas Klikauer Austrofascism Lawrence Davidson Seven Forbidden Words: On the Uses of Censorship.

Joseph Grosso Rage Against the Machine: Robert Hunziker The Unsung Epidemic. Remaining Peaceful Was Their Choice. Dean Baker Dumb and Dumber: Trump on Amazon and the Postal Service.

Yves Engler Lying Diplomacy. Wilgues and His Checker Case.

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.

Religion Is the Opium of the People

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. Marx saw religion as a comforter. But the real challenge is to live without the "heart in a heartless world" that it provides. Marx's phrase makes sense only within its original context.

Without the politics, the debate is sterile. It seeks to overcome oppression in a holistic manner without neglecting any particular axis so that it might be eliminated and genuine social emancipation may be realized.

We recognize that Socialism cannot be achieved while structural oppression continues and workers are divided. We look forward to your participation in our sub, but please be mindful of our posting guidelines. Are you new to socialist ideas? Wondering what alternatives to capitalism exist? Please check out our educational materials and wiki Pokies Meaning Religion Is The Opiate down in this sidebar.

Keep meta posts constructive. This is not a sub for sharing other user's post histories or for sharing screenshots of ridiculous things liberals say. If you are derailing discussions or promoting non-socialist positions, your comments may be removed, and you may receive a warning or a ban. If you are not a Socialist but are learning about it, be politeor you will be banned for trolling.

What did Marx mean with religion being the "opium of the people"? Religion offers an Pokie Recipe Yellowfin Tuna Grilled Sandwich from reality, it helps to take the pain away from the struggles of life within capitalism. It acts as the one good thing that makes life worth living, but it also subdues us, leaves us weak to the whims of the state and the bourgeois who control religion, and nothing fills the proletariat with more fear than eternal damnation.

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. At the time opium was seen as a painkiller. I interpret this as Marx seeing religion as the thing the proletariat turns to to ease the pain of their everyday struggles.

  • With the cheats and hacks a player can get the payment different freely, in its place of paying to play the video games.
  • Context/ examples. coinsluckyz.com Karl Marx Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie [ ] Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüt einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volkes. Bartlett's Familiar  Missing: pokies.
  • Please see our Private Schedule of Charges or contact a financial institution associate for more info.
  • Karl Marx Religion is the opium of the people. One of the more frequently quoted statements of Karl Marx is Religion is the opium of the people this being a translation of the German statement "Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes". This statement appears in Karl Marx' - "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's  Missing: pokies.

Opiate Pokies Meaning Religion Is The

Are about fifty Aristocrat Pokies White Shirt Sovereign now part Santander Group

  1. Consider, second, that opium in Europe was a widely-available, effective painkiller. People took it to relieve toothaches, headaches, joint pains; people gave small quantities of opium to crying children, to calm them down. So, a better interpretation of what Karl Marx is trying to say is that religion is the.:
    All these haraam pokie bars will become halal shisha cafes soon enough. Recently, we've seen much made about whether Islam is an ideology or a religion in the leftist soup that we swim in called the media. Sincere and valiant rightists have been making the assertion that Islam is a political ideology; this. You and your government sicken me. It's time to get rid of this mean spirited, fear mongering government. It can be done by a registered celebrant and have no religious meaning to it whatsoever. So I'm sorry, marriage in Australia is no or banned from ever conceiving. Religion is the Opium of Society. poker machine gambling. Case study 2 - economic constraints on the poker machine market, .. context in the political economy of gambling: that of poker machines. To enable this evaluation of the system by providing “alongside religion and sport an opiate of the masses”. (Frey, ).
  2. Gambling Helpline, Relationships Australia, Pokies Anonymous and OARS in recruitment and ongoing .. by Gambling Research Australia to develop a definition of relapse, examine the predictors of relapse and Gossop M, Green L, Phillips G & Bradley B () Lapse, relapse and survival among opiate addicts.:
    recommend that the following definition of problem gambling be adopted as the national definition: “Problem gambling is characterised by difficulties in limiting the Islamic religion. A major problem for all the ethnic communities was getting problem gamblers to access gambling support services which were sometimes. Imagine that all the martyrs to religious belief, all the victims of religious persecution, died in their hundreds of millions for nothing. Imagine that everything you were taught, believed, clung to for meaning and comfort is wrong. Imagine that it's .. And religion became 'the opiate of the masses'. Maybe that's.

Reviewing Pokies Meaning Religion Is The Opiate course there are several other e-newsletter formats

customers are neighborhood

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. Marx was making a structural functionalism argument about religion , and particularly about organized religion.

Marx wrote this passage in as part of the introduction to a book that criticized philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 's book, Elements of the Philosophy of Right. The introduction was published in in a small journal.

The book itself was published posthumously. The phrase became better known during the s, when Marxism was more popular. Opium smoking has become less common and less accepted since Marx wrote this now-famous line. Some writers speculate on what the modern equivalent would be, such as sports fandom , celebrities , the distractions of television, internet, and other entertainment, etc. The same metaphor was used by many authors during the 19th century.

Their so-called religion works simply as an opiate—stimulating; numbing; quelling pain by means of weakness. Welcome be a religion that pours into the bitter chalice of the suffering human species some sweet, soporific drops of spiritual opium, some drops of love, hope and faith.

Charles Kingsley , a canon of the Church of England , wrote this four years after Marx: We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order.

In the book, the protagonist Don Manuel, is a priest who does not believe in God, but continues preaching because he sees the positive impact he can make in the lives of his parishioners. Ironically, religion in this way also serves to cure his own deep depression, through the happiness he feels from helping the people of Valverde de Lucerna.

Unamuno makes direct reference to Marx when Don Manuel explains:. Yes, I know that one of the leaders of what they call the social revolution has said that religion is the opium of the people. And with this crazy activity of mine, I have also been using opium. Vladimir Lenin , speaking of religion in Novaya Zhizn in , [11] alluded to Marx's earlier comments [ citation needed ] emphasis added:. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward.

But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The govt wasn't toppled by the internet.

If that's the case, why aren't similar subsequent revolutions toppling governments? What about the recent Iranian revolution, does that mean Iran doesn't use the internet as well as Egyptians do?

Yeah, they inspired numerous wars. Recently the invasion into Afghanistan was to A-root out terrorist cells B-destroy poppy fields the produce opium, subsequently heroin, that supply terrorist groups with money. You're statements are too broad to be correct. Try to be less encompasing with your statements because your point will be clearer. Honestly if you give a troll a chance they'll pick out your argument rather than defending their position.

I'm not saying it was a "success" necessarily or that the use of the internet somehow overshadows the main impetus for the revolution. But in the context of an "opiate of the masses" I would say the internet was hardly a pacifying force, quite the opposite. Real, hardcore revolutions are probably always going to stem from real-world "humanitarian reasons. I doubt many would risk getting themselves killed because of online drama.

Though as the internet becomes more and more a fundamental part of our lives, it very well might be a reason to. Not saying it was the primary cause, I'm saying it was a catalyst, a tool that spurred change.

It might never have happened without it, but again, that's highly debatable. The internet is not a status-quo kill switch. It's just not a pacifier to the extent that religion is. Just like religion, an argument could be made that yes, it pacifies people who would otherwise stand up, but as situations boil hotter and steamier, it can become a rallying point as well. Like all things in real life, religion and the Internet are dynamic and reflective of the world around them.

I'm reminded in this case of North Korea, which has a pretty awful situation worthy of action, but the people have no opiate- no religion, no Internet, no opium.

All they have is Juche and worship of their leadership. What outlet do they have? What rallying point do they have? If they had Internet access, would it serve as such a thing? What if they congregated in a temple in worship of a way of life rather than their leadership? Religion, the Internet, and indeed opium are all powerful tools and opiates, I'm starting to believe. The internet has some of that, but people also have a lot more influence on the content of the internet and it definitely isn't all supportive of the status quo.

It's like the opposite. You can replace the internet with "sports" or "videogames" or "tv" and it'll make the same sense. Both sports and video games have well documented positive effects, too, like improving self-confidence, determination, resilience, and problem-solving skills.

Read "The Confidence Code" or "Reality is Broken" for more in-depth analysis and references to original studies. Likewise, the Internet can have a huge positive effect, such as teaching you another lenguage or how to play an instrument. Or simply teacheng you about a certain subject. I think Marx picked religion because it was a tool well constructed tool, you're picking random time wasting events that don't dovetail into any sort of coherent thought process.

Sports, how is that an opiate? Teams only play so often, and they don't offer anything beyond the game. Yes it's a way to distract someone, but distraction isn't the same thing, if you read the link in the wiki above it's about more than just distraction.

The internet seems to work by allowing you to do whatever you want but it's almost like hiding the ideas in a box. Scream at the top of your lungs, log out and nobody is the wiser. Religion would have said something like 'don't scream at someone, treat others like you want to be treated. I think the internet is the substitute, it offers more. It allows you to experience things without every struggling, to argue without actually getting in an argument.

Close the monitor and it's gone from your real life. Need to vent about the neighbor having loud sex? You can turn to the internet complain and half an hour later you feel as though you've done something without actually confronting the neighbor.

Religion ie Christianity is specifically designed to make people accept a lower standard of living on the premise of reward after death. You cite the on-off nature of sports as evidence that it doesn't work in this metaphor, then you cite the on-off nature of the internet connection as evidence that it does work.

Just as the neighbor never properly receives the person's rage due to the internet, the object of an athlete's rage never receives it either. Sports are a social construct that are largely based on the ability to pretend like you're doing things without actually doing them. You pretend to accomplish things while accomplishing nothing. You pretend to take out your aggression, but in a safe environment.

Same with the fans: Anything that's good causes some kind of satisfaction, which will cause people to be satisfied, which can be interpreted as being complacent.

Complacency is metaphorically represented by opium-doping in Marx's famous quote. Internet is part of it. Media in general has become opiate for the masses. Chomsky generally hits it on the head when he talks about how people pay more attention to football games than the news. Religion served as part entertainment, part social event, part moral event.

The churches of yesteryear basically told colorful stories from the bible and how we can relate them to our everyday lives But religion is dry as fuck and mostly fake.

Religion doesn't have cool 3d affects, sport stats, fantasy leagues, interactive games, etc etc. Media has replaced religion as the opiate. When you talk about revolution, revolution only happens when one of mans very basic needs are taken away: Its actually shelter, food and sex or shelter, food and heat, or more often shelter, food and rights.

America has reached something like medevial leves of disparity in terms of wealth divide. But the lower class for the most part isn't rioting in the streets because of it. Because the fundemental law of capitalism and why it works so good, isn't about getting everyone rich You can but a 32 inch tv for bucks and digital television is free if you have an attenea.

If your poor and not picky that right their can keep you entertained for years. It has a multiplicative effect with, cable, netflix or the internet where media is so abundant and vast you could spend a lifetime watching and reading and never see it all. When they talk about "violent video games" and banning them I laugh. I laugh because juvenile crime is down and falling in direct correspondence to video games market growth.

Kids aren't out on the street anymore, they are inside playing video games. If kids playing something like a couple hours of video games a week, those are hours they don't spend on the streets, they don't spend getting mixed up in crime. Those are college hours smart young minds don't spend at political rallies, but rather playing destiny. Those are hours spent talking destiny with friends, rather than talking about ISIS and the goverment.

See generally when something big and bad is going to happen goverment wise, groups have been aware in the past and still are for months if not years, talking about it eyes open keeping aware. Essentially when you feel strongly about something you don't mind getting arrested over it. Getting arrested in the past for a couple of days, wasn't much of a change, but today it feels like a lifetime without news or media.

People can't wait that long or don't want to. If the Internet had to be compared to something from the realm of religion, it would most closely resemble a church. A religion is an ideology. Try to come up with an ideology that you can attribute to the whole internet, and you will fail. However, a church is a place where like-minded people congregate to reinforce and enhance their like-mindedness.

An echo chamber, if you will. This description profoundly suits the internet. Facebook I think is the worst for this, because the majority of users are unaware of the presence and nature of the manipulation of what points of view they see online and how their actions affect it. Even Reddit, one of the more open-minded communities, has its members sorting themselves by what positions they do and don't want to hear. Even if you ignore obvious places like TwoX, MR, RedPill, Atheism, PCMasterRace and I'm sure the list goes on , the voting system itself promotes a certain like-mindedness in terms of promoting and rewarding and therefore spreading the most common behaviors in the default subs.

When someone opens their web browser and clicks a bookmark, they're basically returning to their chosen church. The internet has become a substitute for physical community. The things that keep you on the internet already exist in the real world: Television, sports, movies, shopping ect.

The internet is simply a communication protocol, a tool if you will. How that protocol is leveraged shouldn't be mistaken for the actual thing. I understand, but I wouldn't say Internet is "a communication protocol". It's a communication network, or communication tool, more generally speaking.

I just say this because I think it's clearer and because "communication protocol" is already a technical term regarding Internet, so it sounds confusing. The Internet is a means of delivery. It is the new needle. You can use this new needle to shoot the same old religion drug, or others like porn, politics, or celebrity gossip. Science brings you the internet and makes big screen high-def TVs, portable computers that happen to phone, and a zillion other interfaces and gadgets, but those are tangible effects of science and vehicles for it.

They are the alters where we sacrifice our minds and souls. Science tells society how to behave, what to think, what to wear, even how to vote. People are increasingly likely to trust a universe formed from nothing than a god they don't understand. While at the same time being suspicious of anything not rationalized by science - even the cults of bad science! Everyone is involved with science as creators or researchers or beneficiaries. Thank Nothing there are the high priests of writing and mass media to spread the word!

Television media as a more general term is a more apt comparison. Television holds the same power now that religion once held. I don't think so because the number of TV watchers is in decline. TV watchers can't have a dialogue with TV the same way that religious people can have a dialogue with another person or the way you can I can have a dialogue. You are looking at 'TV' as just cable. It has moved a lot of it to the internet, but all major debate in the world is framed by media.

In regards to two way dialogue, TV improved on the religion method. TV just has both sides of the debate it wants to have already given to you. Rather than being a active participant in a debate which I am highly skeptical could even happen in religion. What debate could you have? This is the answer. You can all discuss how to interpret the answer but we already have it. The telephone allowed us to talk with our voice over distance.

You didn't need someone to translate, they could contact you directly. Radio did the same for news. Imagery from around the world became accessible. The more we communicate, the more we know about the world and the more informed and educated we are, the better we become as a species.

The internet allows for this on the grandest scale yet. We have been so comfortable, we don't know what it means to fight. I would agree with the fact that it anesthetizes people in a way similar to religion, TV, food, marijuana, whatever, if it is used in excess and improperly. I used to ride the dopamine spurts of lolcats and advice animals for a while a day before I realized it was luring me into a false sense of satisfaction.

I think there's time for the internet, but gluttony has turned it just like it does many other things into a dangerous distraction from a healthy life. Rage is becoming the new opiate for the masses.

As a civilization, we've forgotten the meaning of compassion, mercy, and long suffering. The internet is just a means of distribution for rage, along with instant messages, social network posts, and tweets. Let's all hope that rage mode doesn't mutate into berserk mode.

What makes you think that? Don't we live in the most peaceful period of time on earth like, ever? I don't see any particular rise in rage, just the usual loud minority who profit from it and the few who can't see through them. Maybe it is confusing volume with quantity? What internal strain do you think is so prevalent that it is causing rage to become the new opiate of the masses? And I disagree that relative peace has nothing to do with internal stress.

Of course you would have more stress inside if your country is at war. And people doing less awful things to each other is surely a sign of increased compassion and mercy. We are a tribal species whose individual members struggle if left in isolation. Yet, in the last few decades we have replaced tribal community structures and organization with constantly fluid virtual communities. Those members that do not fit into this new model of large scale fluid communities are isolated and prolonged isolation leads to insanity in sentient beings.

We have lived through a period of artificial resource and energy abundance made possible by hydrocarbons. The cheap energy allocation from hydrocarbons that we've grown accustomed has an end date.

As we progress towards that end date the cost of hydrocarbons will continue to rise. Those individuals, groups, and organizations that cannot meet the rising costs will continue to be marginalized and their ranks will likely grow. Although there are many pockets of compassion, mercy, and long suffering- the rise in consumerism and chronically dissatisfied consumption has turned a great majority of people looking either inward at their own relative wealth or they empathize with and support abstractions of other peoples' suffering.

How many people do you know that are happy to give a few dollars to some natural disaster fund that happens on the other side of the country or world, but the idea of putting those same dollars in the cup of a homeless man they walk past daily is unconscionable?

How many people do you know would be willing to serve food in a homeless shelter and stare at the suffering men and women in the eyes, talk to them, or offer them some hope for the future, but those same people are more than happy to tell their office friends about all the terrible suffering happening "over there" somewhere "and something really should be done about it. The real value of the stock market is several hundred to several thousand points below the current market value.

When the market has its next self correction- its going to be a big one. Entrenched monopolies and oligopolies are desperately working to save their businesses against innovative upstarts, now attempting to use legislative fiat to try to save their antiquated business models.

This can be seen in many of the large corporation and cable company mergers and lobbying efforts to congress. This attempt to manipulate the legislative process is called The Rule of Political Economy in economics. Internet has become a substitute for real engagement with your fellow man, which is what religion sort of set the parameters for.

Completely unrelated to the opiate of the masses though, that's a heavy statement of ideological forced submission to shit standards of living and an oligarchy of opressive nutbags. I sat here thinking about it for a few minutes and I think my answer is that from some preliminary Googling and my own knowledge Marx was fairly atheist even if he didn't outright state it.

For that reason, one could say he focused on religion in that comment when he could have opened the definition to include more things. The Romans had a similar thing with "Bread and Circus" to keep the people from revolting. In A Brave New World, the people are inundated with entertainment, to the point where the real wants of the people are totally drowned out.

If internet was around, I'm sure it would have been included in the book. So yes, I agree with you. You've made a good point and it's definitely one worth considering. Do we want to be on the internet all the time?

Maybe moderation could be used a little. The internet seems to be the go-to tool for social action, but it's fairly impotent. The Arab spring wouldn't have been much at all if the people didn't actually revolt. They used the internet as a tool, instead of the ends to the mean. It seems like most users use it as the ends to the mean for nearly everything, and in doing so allow it to swallow up all their time.

I am heavily involved in local government here in Florida as an elected official, but I have a close friend who comes and whines to me about politicians and the problems. Every time I tell him, "Josh, go run for election on this platform of ideas. Go create this change you want to see. Every time I get excuses about "geniuses are socially awkward" and "the best politicians wouldn't want to be politicians.

The act of being a politician is a moral stopping point for a lot of people. Yes you can create change, but you can't do it without a lot of deceit. Well I got into it because I wanted to change the system, and so far it's been rewarding.

The older generation will die one day, and we all need to take their places. Well I think the internet is the end. I don't think it's an intermediary step.

I think lots of other things are the steps and then you turn to the internet for solutions. Fume about it and then make a FB post! It's become a weird substitute for actually interacting in the real world. Lots of people are getting heavily invested in digital realities.

Yes but wouldn't the internet still be the means people use to get that feeling of accomplishment the end , whether it is justified or not? Again not saying you are wrong, just having a hard time figuring out how " ends to the mean" makes sense logically.

result the mobs

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. 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. Marx was making a structural functionalism argument about religion , and particularly about organized religion.

Marx wrote this passage in as part of the introduction to a book that criticized philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 's book, Elements of the Philosophy of Right.

The introduction was published in in a small journal. The book itself was published posthumously. The phrase became better known during the s, when Marxism was more popular. Opium smoking has become less common and less accepted since Marx wrote this now-famous line. Some writers speculate on what the modern equivalent would be, such as sports fandom , celebrities , the distractions of television, internet, and other entertainment, etc.

The same metaphor was used by many authors during the 19th century. Their so-called religion works simply as an opiate—stimulating; numbing; quelling pain by means of weakness. Welcome be a religion that pours into the bitter chalice of the suffering human species some sweet, soporific drops of spiritual opium, some drops of love, hope and faith.

Charles Kingsley , a canon of the Church of England , wrote this four years after Marx: We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order. In the book, the protagonist Don Manuel, is a priest who does not believe in God, but continues preaching because he sees the positive impact he can make in the lives of his parishioners.

Ironically, religion in this way also serves to cure his own deep depression, through the happiness he feels from helping the people of Valverde de Lucerna. Unamuno makes direct reference to Marx when Don Manuel explains:. Yes, I know that one of the leaders of what they call the social revolution has said that religion is the opium of the people. And with this crazy activity of mine, I have also been using opium. Vladimir Lenin , speaking of religion in Novaya Zhizn in , [11] alluded to Marx's earlier comments [ citation needed ] emphasis added:.

The addiction thing doesn't really work. You said so yourself, if you can get addicted to shopping you can get addicted to anything. Of course there should be moderation, but the risk Ii s no bigger then most other entertaining things. Isn't that why there is more of a parallel between the internet and Marx's opium.

It was the drug of the masses that nulled them and gave illusionary happiness. Almost nothing from the internet for most people and most content I would say is real, to take away the internet from people would make them face their lives directly.

All their problems can't be escaped from into an internet dreamland bubble. Think of how basic masturbation was before the internet. It's not remotely close to religion. Religion narrows someone's mind - while the internet has almost literally the exact opposite effect. There is a second part to this. If it only served as a pain-killer for the poor, then we would expect only poor people to be religious. But that isn't the case. If poor people need pain-killer to deal with whatever causes that pain, I think Marx would also say that rich people need a pain killer to deal with their guilty consciences.

How else can rich people deal with 2 conflicting facts: Actually, he said that rich people attended and supported the Church because it in turn supported them. By visibly supporting the church, they normalized adherence and contributed to a culture of near-manditory religion. By financially supporting the church, they ensured that the church was able to perform its function and to do so as their ally.

Marx's church was never the bad guy or the good guy; it was simply a tool of "the owners of the means of production" maintaining control over their workforce. I see this role being filled quite nicely by the internet.

News and opinions are proliferated and preached, and "slacktivism" brought about by social networking allows a mere fallacy of fighting to obtain a better situation, without actually having to work toward anything tangible. But what about the Arab spring? What about hacker communities like lulz sec? What about the occupy movements? The Internet allows people to collude, to encourage dissent, allows like minded groups from all over the world to come together, coordinate and communicate.

The Internet catalyzes these kinds of changes like no medium before it ever has. It's a powerful tool, not an opiate. The majority of users contribute in a meaningful way.

The Arab spring existed in the real world, not in the internet, it was a tool for organizing - but at no point was it meme's of Egyptian leaders. As much as it is a catalyst for change, I think that a minority uses it to that extent. It seems like it has leapfrogged over TV in terms of a 'tune out' mechanism and a better one because you can input or exchange ideas. So because the AS was powerful enough to actually create sweeping real world changes it doesn't count somehow? What about all the ideas that DID go somewhere?

That caused people to raise money, to protest, to change their own lives, or the lives of others? Sure you can use the internet to dick around and watch porn and dox innocent people, but you can also use it to topple a government. If we ever see the day that whatever revolutionary changes YOU would like to see happen, you can bet your bottom dollar it will be instigated by the internet. The Arab spring wasn't a result of the internet. The internet was a helpful tool the same way phones or radio could be, but the movement was never started from the internet.

Did the internet accelerate movements, crowds, gatherings? But the oppression of rights was real, the theft from the people was real, the rebellion would have existed regardless of the internet and rebellions pop up frequently. Treating the Arab Spring like a success because of the integration of technology seems like it's overlooking the humanitarian reasons the revolution existed in the first place. The govt wasn't toppled by the internet. If that's the case, why aren't similar subsequent revolutions toppling governments?

What about the recent Iranian revolution, does that mean Iran doesn't use the internet as well as Egyptians do? Yeah, they inspired numerous wars. Recently the invasion into Afghanistan was to A-root out terrorist cells B-destroy poppy fields the produce opium, subsequently heroin, that supply terrorist groups with money.

You're statements are too broad to be correct. Try to be less encompasing with your statements because your point will be clearer. Honestly if you give a troll a chance they'll pick out your argument rather than defending their position. I'm not saying it was a "success" necessarily or that the use of the internet somehow overshadows the main impetus for the revolution.

But in the context of an "opiate of the masses" I would say the internet was hardly a pacifying force, quite the opposite. Real, hardcore revolutions are probably always going to stem from real-world "humanitarian reasons. I doubt many would risk getting themselves killed because of online drama. Though as the internet becomes more and more a fundamental part of our lives, it very well might be a reason to.

Not saying it was the primary cause, I'm saying it was a catalyst, a tool that spurred change. It might never have happened without it, but again, that's highly debatable.

The internet is not a status-quo kill switch. It's just not a pacifier to the extent that religion is. Just like religion, an argument could be made that yes, it pacifies people who would otherwise stand up, but as situations boil hotter and steamier, it can become a rallying point as well. Like all things in real life, religion and the Internet are dynamic and reflective of the world around them.

I'm reminded in this case of North Korea, which has a pretty awful situation worthy of action, but the people have no opiate- no religion, no Internet, no opium. All they have is Juche and worship of their leadership. What outlet do they have? What rallying point do they have? If they had Internet access, would it serve as such a thing?

What if they congregated in a temple in worship of a way of life rather than their leadership? Religion, the Internet, and indeed opium are all powerful tools and opiates, I'm starting to believe. The internet has some of that, but people also have a lot more influence on the content of the internet and it definitely isn't all supportive of the status quo.

It's like the opposite. You can replace the internet with "sports" or "videogames" or "tv" and it'll make the same sense. Both sports and video games have well documented positive effects, too, like improving self-confidence, determination, resilience, and problem-solving skills. Read "The Confidence Code" or "Reality is Broken" for more in-depth analysis and references to original studies. Likewise, the Internet can have a huge positive effect, such as teaching you another lenguage or how to play an instrument.

Or simply teacheng you about a certain subject. I think Marx picked religion because it was a tool well constructed tool, you're picking random time wasting events that don't dovetail into any sort of coherent thought process. Sports, how is that an opiate? Teams only play so often, and they don't offer anything beyond the game. Yes it's a way to distract someone, but distraction isn't the same thing, if you read the link in the wiki above it's about more than just distraction.

The internet seems to work by allowing you to do whatever you want but it's almost like hiding the ideas in a box. Scream at the top of your lungs, log out and nobody is the wiser. Religion would have said something like 'don't scream at someone, treat others like you want to be treated. I think the internet is the substitute, it offers more.

It allows you to experience things without every struggling, to argue without actually getting in an argument. Close the monitor and it's gone from your real life. Need to vent about the neighbor having loud sex? You can turn to the internet complain and half an hour later you feel as though you've done something without actually confronting the neighbor.

Religion ie Christianity is specifically designed to make people accept a lower standard of living on the premise of reward after death. You cite the on-off nature of sports as evidence that it doesn't work in this metaphor, then you cite the on-off nature of the internet connection as evidence that it does work. Just as the neighbor never properly receives the person's rage due to the internet, the object of an athlete's rage never receives it either.

Sports are a social construct that are largely based on the ability to pretend like you're doing things without actually doing them. You pretend to accomplish things while accomplishing nothing. You pretend to take out your aggression, but in a safe environment. Same with the fans: Anything that's good causes some kind of satisfaction, which will cause people to be satisfied, which can be interpreted as being complacent.

Complacency is metaphorically represented by opium-doping in Marx's famous quote. Internet is part of it. Media in general has become opiate for the masses. Chomsky generally hits it on the head when he talks about how people pay more attention to football games than the news. Religion served as part entertainment, part social event, part moral event. The churches of yesteryear basically told colorful stories from the bible and how we can relate them to our everyday lives But religion is dry as fuck and mostly fake.

Religion doesn't have cool 3d affects, sport stats, fantasy leagues, interactive games, etc etc. Media has replaced religion as the opiate. When you talk about revolution, revolution only happens when one of mans very basic needs are taken away: Its actually shelter, food and sex or shelter, food and heat, or more often shelter, food and rights. America has reached something like medevial leves of disparity in terms of wealth divide.

But the lower class for the most part isn't rioting in the streets because of it. Because the fundemental law of capitalism and why it works so good, isn't about getting everyone rich You can but a 32 inch tv for bucks and digital television is free if you have an attenea. If your poor and not picky that right their can keep you entertained for years.

It has a multiplicative effect with, cable, netflix or the internet where media is so abundant and vast you could spend a lifetime watching and reading and never see it all. When they talk about "violent video games" and banning them I laugh. I laugh because juvenile crime is down and falling in direct correspondence to video games market growth.

Kids aren't out on the street anymore, they are inside playing video games. If kids playing something like a couple hours of video games a week, those are hours they don't spend on the streets, they don't spend getting mixed up in crime. Those are college hours smart young minds don't spend at political rallies, but rather playing destiny. Those are hours spent talking destiny with friends, rather than talking about ISIS and the goverment. See generally when something big and bad is going to happen goverment wise, groups have been aware in the past and still are for months if not years, talking about it eyes open keeping aware.

Essentially when you feel strongly about something you don't mind getting arrested over it. Getting arrested in the past for a couple of days, wasn't much of a change, but today it feels like a lifetime without news or media.

People can't wait that long or don't want to. If the Internet had to be compared to something from the realm of religion, it would most closely resemble a church. A religion is an ideology. Try to come up with an ideology that you can attribute to the whole internet, and you will fail.

However, a church is a place where like-minded people congregate to reinforce and enhance their like-mindedness. An echo chamber, if you will. This description profoundly suits the internet.

Facebook I think is the worst for this, because the majority of users are unaware of the presence and nature of the manipulation of what points of view they see online and how their actions affect it. Even Reddit, one of the more open-minded communities, has its members sorting themselves by what positions they do and don't want to hear. Even if you ignore obvious places like TwoX, MR, RedPill, Atheism, PCMasterRace and I'm sure the list goes on , the voting system itself promotes a certain like-mindedness in terms of promoting and rewarding and therefore spreading the most common behaviors in the default subs.

When someone opens their web browser and clicks a bookmark, they're basically returning to their chosen church. The internet has become a substitute for physical community. The things that keep you on the internet already exist in the real world: Television, sports, movies, shopping ect.

The internet is simply a communication protocol, a tool if you will. How that protocol is leveraged shouldn't be mistaken for the actual thing. I understand, but I wouldn't say Internet is "a communication protocol". It's a communication network, or communication tool, more generally speaking.

I just say this because I think it's clearer and because "communication protocol" is already a technical term regarding Internet, so it sounds confusing. The Internet is a means of delivery. It is the new needle. You can use this new needle to shoot the same old religion drug, or others like porn, politics, or celebrity gossip. Science brings you the internet and makes big screen high-def TVs, portable computers that happen to phone, and a zillion other interfaces and gadgets, but those are tangible effects of science and vehicles for it.

They are the alters where we sacrifice our minds and souls. Science tells society how to behave, what to think, what to wear, even how to vote. People are increasingly likely to trust a universe formed from nothing than a god they don't understand. While at the same time being suspicious of anything not rationalized by science - even the cults of bad science! Everyone is involved with science as creators or researchers or beneficiaries.

Thank Nothing there are the high priests of writing and mass media to spread the word! Television media as a more general term is a more apt comparison. Television holds the same power now that religion once held. I don't think so because the number of TV watchers is in decline.

TV watchers can't have a dialogue with TV the same way that religious people can have a dialogue with another person or the way you can I can have a dialogue. You are looking at 'TV' as just cable. It has moved a lot of it to the internet, but all major debate in the world is framed by media. In regards to two way dialogue, TV improved on the religion method. TV just has both sides of the debate it wants to have already given to you.

Rather than being a active participant in a debate which I am highly skeptical could even happen in religion. What debate could you have? This is the answer. You can all discuss how to interpret the answer but we already have it. The telephone allowed us to talk with our voice over distance.

You didn't need someone to translate, they could contact you directly. Radio did the same for news. Imagery from around the world became accessible. The more we communicate, the more we know about the world and the more informed and educated we are, the better we become as a species. The internet allows for this on the grandest scale yet. We have been so comfortable, we don't know what it means to fight.

I would agree with the fact that it anesthetizes people in a way similar to religion, TV, food, marijuana, whatever, if it is used in excess and improperly.

I used to ride the dopamine spurts of lolcats and advice animals for a while a day before I realized it was luring me into a false sense of satisfaction. I think there's time for the internet, but gluttony has turned it just like it does many other things into a dangerous distraction from a healthy life. Rage is becoming the new opiate for the masses. As a civilization, we've forgotten the meaning of compassion, mercy, and long suffering.

The internet is just a means of distribution for rage, along with instant messages, social network posts, and tweets. Let's all hope that rage mode doesn't mutate into berserk mode. What makes you think that? Don't we live in the most peaceful period of time on earth like, ever? I don't see any particular rise in rage, just the usual loud minority who profit from it and the few who can't see through them.

Maybe it is confusing volume with quantity? What internal strain do you think is so prevalent that it is causing rage to become the new opiate of the masses? And I disagree that relative peace has nothing to do with internal stress.

Of course you would have more stress inside if your country is at war. And people doing less awful things to each other is surely a sign of increased compassion and mercy. We are a tribal species whose individual members struggle if left in isolation. Yet, in the last few decades we have replaced tribal community structures and organization with constantly fluid virtual communities. Those members that do not fit into this new model of large scale fluid communities are isolated and prolonged isolation leads to insanity in sentient beings.

We have lived through a period of artificial resource and energy abundance made possible by hydrocarbons. The cheap energy allocation from hydrocarbons that we've grown accustomed has an end date.

player

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. 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. Marx was making a structural functionalism argument about religion , and particularly about organized religion. Marx wrote this passage in as part of the introduction to a book that criticized philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 's book, Elements of the Philosophy of Right.

The introduction was published in in a small journal. The book itself was published posthumously. The phrase became better known during the s, when Marxism was more popular. Opium smoking has become less common and less accepted since Marx wrote this now-famous line. Some writers speculate on what the modern equivalent would be, such as sports fandom , celebrities , the distractions of television, internet, and other entertainment, etc.

The same metaphor was used by many authors during the 19th century. Their so-called religion works simply as an opiate—stimulating; numbing; quelling pain by means of weakness. Welcome be a religion that pours into the bitter chalice of the suffering human species some sweet, soporific drops of spiritual opium, some drops of love, hope and faith.

Charles Kingsley , a canon of the Church of England , wrote this four years after Marx: We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order. In the book, the protagonist Don Manuel, is a priest who does not believe in God, but continues preaching because he sees the positive impact he can make in the lives of his parishioners.

Ironically, religion in this way also serves to cure his own deep depression, through the happiness he feels from helping the people of Valverde de Lucerna. Unamuno makes direct reference to Marx when Don Manuel explains:. Yes, I know that one of the leaders of what they call the social revolution has said that religion is the opium of the people.

And with this crazy activity of mine, I have also been using opium. Vladimir Lenin , speaking of religion in Novaya Zhizn in , [11] alluded to Marx's earlier comments [ citation needed ] emphasis added:.

Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. If they had Internet access, would it serve as such a thing? What if they congregated in a temple in worship of a way of life rather than their leadership?

Religion, the Internet, and indeed opium are all powerful tools and opiates, I'm starting to believe. The internet has some of that, but people also have a lot more influence on the content of the internet and it definitely isn't all supportive of the status quo. It's like the opposite. You can replace the internet with "sports" or "videogames" or "tv" and it'll make the same sense. Both sports and video games have well documented positive effects, too, like improving self-confidence, determination, resilience, and problem-solving skills.

Read "The Confidence Code" or "Reality is Broken" for more in-depth analysis and references to original studies. Likewise, the Internet can have a huge positive effect, such as teaching you another lenguage or how to play an instrument. Or simply teacheng you about a certain subject.

I think Marx picked religion because it was a tool well constructed tool, you're picking random time wasting events that don't dovetail into any sort of coherent thought process.

Sports, how is that an opiate? Teams only play so often, and they don't offer anything beyond the game. Yes it's a way to distract someone, but distraction isn't the same thing, if you read the link in the wiki above it's about more than just distraction. The internet seems to work by allowing you to do whatever you want but it's almost like hiding the ideas in a box. Scream at the top of your lungs, log out and nobody is the wiser.

Religion would have said something like 'don't scream at someone, treat others like you want to be treated. I think the internet is the substitute, it offers more. It allows you to experience things without every struggling, to argue without actually getting in an argument. Close the monitor and it's gone from your real life. Need to vent about the neighbor having loud sex?

You can turn to the internet complain and half an hour later you feel as though you've done something without actually confronting the neighbor. Religion ie Christianity is specifically designed to make people accept a lower standard of living on the premise of reward after death.

You cite the on-off nature of sports as evidence that it doesn't work in this metaphor, then you cite the on-off nature of the internet connection as evidence that it does work.

Just as the neighbor never properly receives the person's rage due to the internet, the object of an athlete's rage never receives it either. Sports are a social construct that are largely based on the ability to pretend like you're doing things without actually doing them. You pretend to accomplish things while accomplishing nothing. You pretend to take out your aggression, but in a safe environment. Same with the fans: Anything that's good causes some kind of satisfaction, which will cause people to be satisfied, which can be interpreted as being complacent.

Complacency is metaphorically represented by opium-doping in Marx's famous quote. Internet is part of it. Media in general has become opiate for the masses. Chomsky generally hits it on the head when he talks about how people pay more attention to football games than the news. Religion served as part entertainment, part social event, part moral event. The churches of yesteryear basically told colorful stories from the bible and how we can relate them to our everyday lives But religion is dry as fuck and mostly fake.

Religion doesn't have cool 3d affects, sport stats, fantasy leagues, interactive games, etc etc. Media has replaced religion as the opiate. When you talk about revolution, revolution only happens when one of mans very basic needs are taken away: Its actually shelter, food and sex or shelter, food and heat, or more often shelter, food and rights. America has reached something like medevial leves of disparity in terms of wealth divide.

But the lower class for the most part isn't rioting in the streets because of it. Because the fundemental law of capitalism and why it works so good, isn't about getting everyone rich You can but a 32 inch tv for bucks and digital television is free if you have an attenea. If your poor and not picky that right their can keep you entertained for years.

It has a multiplicative effect with, cable, netflix or the internet where media is so abundant and vast you could spend a lifetime watching and reading and never see it all.

When they talk about "violent video games" and banning them I laugh. I laugh because juvenile crime is down and falling in direct correspondence to video games market growth.

Kids aren't out on the street anymore, they are inside playing video games. If kids playing something like a couple hours of video games a week, those are hours they don't spend on the streets, they don't spend getting mixed up in crime.

Those are college hours smart young minds don't spend at political rallies, but rather playing destiny. Those are hours spent talking destiny with friends, rather than talking about ISIS and the goverment.

See generally when something big and bad is going to happen goverment wise, groups have been aware in the past and still are for months if not years, talking about it eyes open keeping aware.

Essentially when you feel strongly about something you don't mind getting arrested over it. Getting arrested in the past for a couple of days, wasn't much of a change, but today it feels like a lifetime without news or media. People can't wait that long or don't want to. If the Internet had to be compared to something from the realm of religion, it would most closely resemble a church. A religion is an ideology.

Try to come up with an ideology that you can attribute to the whole internet, and you will fail. However, a church is a place where like-minded people congregate to reinforce and enhance their like-mindedness. An echo chamber, if you will. This description profoundly suits the internet. Facebook I think is the worst for this, because the majority of users are unaware of the presence and nature of the manipulation of what points of view they see online and how their actions affect it.

Even Reddit, one of the more open-minded communities, has its members sorting themselves by what positions they do and don't want to hear. Even if you ignore obvious places like TwoX, MR, RedPill, Atheism, PCMasterRace and I'm sure the list goes on , the voting system itself promotes a certain like-mindedness in terms of promoting and rewarding and therefore spreading the most common behaviors in the default subs.

When someone opens their web browser and clicks a bookmark, they're basically returning to their chosen church. The internet has become a substitute for physical community. The things that keep you on the internet already exist in the real world: Television, sports, movies, shopping ect. The internet is simply a communication protocol, a tool if you will.

How that protocol is leveraged shouldn't be mistaken for the actual thing. I understand, but I wouldn't say Internet is "a communication protocol". It's a communication network, or communication tool, more generally speaking. I just say this because I think it's clearer and because "communication protocol" is already a technical term regarding Internet, so it sounds confusing. The Internet is a means of delivery. It is the new needle. You can use this new needle to shoot the same old religion drug, or others like porn, politics, or celebrity gossip.

Science brings you the internet and makes big screen high-def TVs, portable computers that happen to phone, and a zillion other interfaces and gadgets, but those are tangible effects of science and vehicles for it. They are the alters where we sacrifice our minds and souls. Science tells society how to behave, what to think, what to wear, even how to vote. People are increasingly likely to trust a universe formed from nothing than a god they don't understand.

While at the same time being suspicious of anything not rationalized by science - even the cults of bad science! Everyone is involved with science as creators or researchers or beneficiaries. Thank Nothing there are the high priests of writing and mass media to spread the word! Television media as a more general term is a more apt comparison.

Television holds the same power now that religion once held. I don't think so because the number of TV watchers is in decline.

TV watchers can't have a dialogue with TV the same way that religious people can have a dialogue with another person or the way you can I can have a dialogue. You are looking at 'TV' as just cable. It has moved a lot of it to the internet, but all major debate in the world is framed by media. In regards to two way dialogue, TV improved on the religion method. TV just has both sides of the debate it wants to have already given to you.

Rather than being a active participant in a debate which I am highly skeptical could even happen in religion. What debate could you have? This is the answer. You can all discuss how to interpret the answer but we already have it. The telephone allowed us to talk with our voice over distance. You didn't need someone to translate, they could contact you directly. Radio did the same for news. Imagery from around the world became accessible. The more we communicate, the more we know about the world and the more informed and educated we are, the better we become as a species.

The internet allows for this on the grandest scale yet. We have been so comfortable, we don't know what it means to fight. I would agree with the fact that it anesthetizes people in a way similar to religion, TV, food, marijuana, whatever, if it is used in excess and improperly. I used to ride the dopamine spurts of lolcats and advice animals for a while a day before I realized it was luring me into a false sense of satisfaction. I think there's time for the internet, but gluttony has turned it just like it does many other things into a dangerous distraction from a healthy life.

Rage is becoming the new opiate for the masses. As a civilization, we've forgotten the meaning of compassion, mercy, and long suffering. The internet is just a means of distribution for rage, along with instant messages, social network posts, and tweets. Let's all hope that rage mode doesn't mutate into berserk mode. What makes you think that? Don't we live in the most peaceful period of time on earth like, ever? I don't see any particular rise in rage, just the usual loud minority who profit from it and the few who can't see through them.

Maybe it is confusing volume with quantity? What internal strain do you think is so prevalent that it is causing rage to become the new opiate of the masses? And I disagree that relative peace has nothing to do with internal stress. Of course you would have more stress inside if your country is at war.

And people doing less awful things to each other is surely a sign of increased compassion and mercy. We are a tribal species whose individual members struggle if left in isolation. Yet, in the last few decades we have replaced tribal community structures and organization with constantly fluid virtual communities. Those members that do not fit into this new model of large scale fluid communities are isolated and prolonged isolation leads to insanity in sentient beings.

We have lived through a period of artificial resource and energy abundance made possible by hydrocarbons. The cheap energy allocation from hydrocarbons that we've grown accustomed has an end date. As we progress towards that end date the cost of hydrocarbons will continue to rise. Those individuals, groups, and organizations that cannot meet the rising costs will continue to be marginalized and their ranks will likely grow.

Although there are many pockets of compassion, mercy, and long suffering- the rise in consumerism and chronically dissatisfied consumption has turned a great majority of people looking either inward at their own relative wealth or they empathize with and support abstractions of other peoples' suffering.

How many people do you know that are happy to give a few dollars to some natural disaster fund that happens on the other side of the country or world, but the idea of putting those same dollars in the cup of a homeless man they walk past daily is unconscionable? How many people do you know would be willing to serve food in a homeless shelter and stare at the suffering men and women in the eyes, talk to them, or offer them some hope for the future, but those same people are more than happy to tell their office friends about all the terrible suffering happening "over there" somewhere "and something really should be done about it.

The real value of the stock market is several hundred to several thousand points below the current market value. When the market has its next self correction- its going to be a big one.

Entrenched monopolies and oligopolies are desperately working to save their businesses against innovative upstarts, now attempting to use legislative fiat to try to save their antiquated business models.

This can be seen in many of the large corporation and cable company mergers and lobbying efforts to congress. This attempt to manipulate the legislative process is called The Rule of Political Economy in economics. Internet has become a substitute for real engagement with your fellow man, which is what religion sort of set the parameters for.

Completely unrelated to the opiate of the masses though, that's a heavy statement of ideological forced submission to shit standards of living and an oligarchy of opressive nutbags. I sat here thinking about it for a few minutes and I think my answer is that from some preliminary Googling and my own knowledge Marx was fairly atheist even if he didn't outright state it.

For that reason, one could say he focused on religion in that comment when he could have opened the definition to include more things. The Romans had a similar thing with "Bread and Circus" to keep the people from revolting. In A Brave New World, the people are inundated with entertainment, to the point where the real wants of the people are totally drowned out. If internet was around, I'm sure it would have been included in the book. So yes, I agree with you. You've made a good point and it's definitely one worth considering.

Do we want to be on the internet all the time? Maybe moderation could be used a little. The internet seems to be the go-to tool for social action, but it's fairly impotent. The Arab spring wouldn't have been much at all if the people didn't actually revolt. They used the internet as a tool, instead of the ends to the mean. It seems like most users use it as the ends to the mean for nearly everything, and in doing so allow it to swallow up all their time.

I am heavily involved in local government here in Florida as an elected official, but I have a close friend who comes and whines to me about politicians and the problems. Every time I tell him, "Josh, go run for election on this platform of ideas.

Go create this change you want to see. Every time I get excuses about "geniuses are socially awkward" and "the best politicians wouldn't want to be politicians. The act of being a politician is a moral stopping point for a lot of people. Yes you can create change, but you can't do it without a lot of deceit. Well I got into it because I wanted to change the system, and so far it's been rewarding. The older generation will die one day, and we all need to take their places. Well I think the internet is the end.

I don't think it's an intermediary step. I think lots of other things are the steps and then you turn to the internet for solutions. Fume about it and then make a FB post! It's become a weird substitute for actually interacting in the real world. Lots of people are getting heavily invested in digital realities. Yes but wouldn't the internet still be the means people use to get that feeling of accomplishment the end , whether it is justified or not?

Again not saying you are wrong, just having a hard time figuring out how " ends to the mean" makes sense logically.

I think it is the 'end' because it can't offer you anything. If you want to feel good about something you accomplished then you should feel good about it. Posting on a graduation pic on instagram shouldn't make you feel good, it should be a banal process, but the addition of a 'like' feature seems like a treat.

That treat is a false reality, likes isn't a real thing. Graduating is a real thing and you should feel good about that whether you get 5 likes likes or zero likes. While I agree that graduation is a good thing and people should feel good about it, I don't nessicarily think it is a bad thing to feel good about getting likes on a picture.

It feels good to get recognition for your accomplishments from your family and peer group. I see likes as the electronic equivalent of a handshake and a compliment. It is just a new way of communicating your thoughts and feelings. The key is to keep in mind that that is all it is. Feeling good that people like your pics is a good thing. Feeling like you accomplished something by liking amnesty international or whatever's web page is where you start running into problems.

And regardless of why, if the internet is the end, then what is the means in your phrase of "end to the means"? Access to more sources of information does not a religion make. It would appear to be the opposite. Religion relies on ignorance. Ignorant masses are more easily controlled.

I'm not claiming the internet is a religion; I'm pointing out that the two are very parallel to each other in the way they can diffuse real world action. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

By having a Reddit account, you can subscribe, vote, and comment on all your favorite Reddit content. Sign up in just seconds. Already have an account? Log In Skip for now.

sizes

Ironically, religion in this way also serves to cure his own deep depression, through the happiness he feels from helping the people of Valverde de Lucerna. Unamuno makes direct reference to Marx when Don Manuel explains:. Yes, I know that one of the leaders of what they call the social revolution has said that religion is the opium of the people.

And with this crazy activity of mine, I have also been using opium. Vladimir Lenin , speaking of religion in Novaya Zhizn in , [11] alluded to Marx's earlier comments [ citation needed ] emphasis added:. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven.

Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about Karl Marx's statement. For Slipknot's song, see Vol. Expression, Protest and the Dialectics of Religion'. Critical Sociology, vol 31, no.

Collected Works , v. The Encyclopedia of World Religions. Novalis, Signs of Revolution. Retrieved from " https: Criticism of religion Marxism Political catchphrases Quotations. You can all discuss how to interpret the answer but we already have it. The telephone allowed us to talk with our voice over distance. You didn't need someone to translate, they could contact you directly. Radio did the same for news.

Imagery from around the world became accessible. The more we communicate, the more we know about the world and the more informed and educated we are, the better we become as a species. The internet allows for this on the grandest scale yet. We have been so comfortable, we don't know what it means to fight.

I would agree with the fact that it anesthetizes people in a way similar to religion, TV, food, marijuana, whatever, if it is used in excess and improperly.

I used to ride the dopamine spurts of lolcats and advice animals for a while a day before I realized it was luring me into a false sense of satisfaction. I think there's time for the internet, but gluttony has turned it just like it does many other things into a dangerous distraction from a healthy life. Rage is becoming the new opiate for the masses. As a civilization, we've forgotten the meaning of compassion, mercy, and long suffering. The internet is just a means of distribution for rage, along with instant messages, social network posts, and tweets.

Let's all hope that rage mode doesn't mutate into berserk mode. What makes you think that? Don't we live in the most peaceful period of time on earth like, ever?

I don't see any particular rise in rage, just the usual loud minority who profit from it and the few who can't see through them. Maybe it is confusing volume with quantity?

What internal strain do you think is so prevalent that it is causing rage to become the new opiate of the masses? And I disagree that relative peace has nothing to do with internal stress. Of course you would have more stress inside if your country is at war. And people doing less awful things to each other is surely a sign of increased compassion and mercy. We are a tribal species whose individual members struggle if left in isolation.

Yet, in the last few decades we have replaced tribal community structures and organization with constantly fluid virtual communities. Those members that do not fit into this new model of large scale fluid communities are isolated and prolonged isolation leads to insanity in sentient beings.

We have lived through a period of artificial resource and energy abundance made possible by hydrocarbons. The cheap energy allocation from hydrocarbons that we've grown accustomed has an end date.

As we progress towards that end date the cost of hydrocarbons will continue to rise. Those individuals, groups, and organizations that cannot meet the rising costs will continue to be marginalized and their ranks will likely grow. Although there are many pockets of compassion, mercy, and long suffering- the rise in consumerism and chronically dissatisfied consumption has turned a great majority of people looking either inward at their own relative wealth or they empathize with and support abstractions of other peoples' suffering.

How many people do you know that are happy to give a few dollars to some natural disaster fund that happens on the other side of the country or world, but the idea of putting those same dollars in the cup of a homeless man they walk past daily is unconscionable?

How many people do you know would be willing to serve food in a homeless shelter and stare at the suffering men and women in the eyes, talk to them, or offer them some hope for the future, but those same people are more than happy to tell their office friends about all the terrible suffering happening "over there" somewhere "and something really should be done about it.

The real value of the stock market is several hundred to several thousand points below the current market value. When the market has its next self correction- its going to be a big one. Entrenched monopolies and oligopolies are desperately working to save their businesses against innovative upstarts, now attempting to use legislative fiat to try to save their antiquated business models.

This can be seen in many of the large corporation and cable company mergers and lobbying efforts to congress. This attempt to manipulate the legislative process is called The Rule of Political Economy in economics.

Internet has become a substitute for real engagement with your fellow man, which is what religion sort of set the parameters for.

Completely unrelated to the opiate of the masses though, that's a heavy statement of ideological forced submission to shit standards of living and an oligarchy of opressive nutbags. I sat here thinking about it for a few minutes and I think my answer is that from some preliminary Googling and my own knowledge Marx was fairly atheist even if he didn't outright state it.

For that reason, one could say he focused on religion in that comment when he could have opened the definition to include more things. The Romans had a similar thing with "Bread and Circus" to keep the people from revolting. In A Brave New World, the people are inundated with entertainment, to the point where the real wants of the people are totally drowned out. If internet was around, I'm sure it would have been included in the book.

So yes, I agree with you. You've made a good point and it's definitely one worth considering. Do we want to be on the internet all the time? Maybe moderation could be used a little. The internet seems to be the go-to tool for social action, but it's fairly impotent. The Arab spring wouldn't have been much at all if the people didn't actually revolt. They used the internet as a tool, instead of the ends to the mean. It seems like most users use it as the ends to the mean for nearly everything, and in doing so allow it to swallow up all their time.

I am heavily involved in local government here in Florida as an elected official, but I have a close friend who comes and whines to me about politicians and the problems. Every time I tell him, "Josh, go run for election on this platform of ideas. Go create this change you want to see. Every time I get excuses about "geniuses are socially awkward" and "the best politicians wouldn't want to be politicians.

The act of being a politician is a moral stopping point for a lot of people. Yes you can create change, but you can't do it without a lot of deceit. Well I got into it because I wanted to change the system, and so far it's been rewarding. The older generation will die one day, and we all need to take their places. Well I think the internet is the end. I don't think it's an intermediary step.

I think lots of other things are the steps and then you turn to the internet for solutions. Fume about it and then make a FB post! It's become a weird substitute for actually interacting in the real world. Lots of people are getting heavily invested in digital realities. Yes but wouldn't the internet still be the means people use to get that feeling of accomplishment the end , whether it is justified or not? Again not saying you are wrong, just having a hard time figuring out how " ends to the mean" makes sense logically.

I think it is the 'end' because it can't offer you anything. If you want to feel good about something you accomplished then you should feel good about it. Posting on a graduation pic on instagram shouldn't make you feel good, it should be a banal process, but the addition of a 'like' feature seems like a treat. That treat is a false reality, likes isn't a real thing.

Graduating is a real thing and you should feel good about that whether you get 5 likes likes or zero likes. While I agree that graduation is a good thing and people should feel good about it, I don't nessicarily think it is a bad thing to feel good about getting likes on a picture.

It feels good to get recognition for your accomplishments from your family and peer group. I see likes as the electronic equivalent of a handshake and a compliment. It is just a new way of communicating your thoughts and feelings. The key is to keep in mind that that is all it is. Feeling good that people like your pics is a good thing. Feeling like you accomplished something by liking amnesty international or whatever's web page is where you start running into problems.

And regardless of why, if the internet is the end, then what is the means in your phrase of "end to the means"?

Access to more sources of information does not a religion make. It would appear to be the opposite. Religion relies on ignorance. Ignorant masses are more easily controlled. I'm not claiming the internet is a religion; I'm pointing out that the two are very parallel to each other in the way they can diffuse real world action. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

By having a Reddit account, you can subscribe, vote, and comment on all your favorite Reddit content. Sign up in just seconds. Already have an account? Log In Skip for now. Reddit is filled with interest based communities, offering something for everyone. Check out some communities and we recommend you subscribe to at least 5. Your username is how other community members will see you. This name will be used to credit you for things you share on Reddit. What should we call you?

Having a hard time picking a name? Here are some available suggestions. Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit a new text post. TrueAskReddit subscribe unsubscribe 98, readers 93 users here now New users: Be sure to read the sidebar About TrueAskreddit is a subreddit for intelligent discussion about interesting issues. Rules for Submissions No questions that have one definite answer, could be easily googled for answers, or offer limited opportunity for open-ended discussion.

No meta-reddit discussion topics. Rules for Commenting Please keep this place civil. No memes, jokes, puns, reaction images, circlejerking etc. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and subscribe to one of thousands of communities. TrueAskReddit submitted 3 years ago by doublen00b. Want to add to the discussion? I don't see the internet having such a role in modern society. If that's not an opiate I don't know what is.

The internet isn't even one thing, it's not even a handful of things - as religion is. The church in turn kept the workforce calm, consoled, and obedient.

Religion started every war in the middle east, from the crusades to the present day. But in what capacity? Would it have gone as far as it did? Would it have been as far-reaching?

Who's to say they won't in the future? Thus, anything that's good is an opiate. Internet uses many communication protocols, the main one being IP Internet Protocol. You may already know that and I should shut up. Science says global warming… Science says evolution… Science says creation… Science says how you feel means… Science brings you the internet and makes big screen high-def TVs, portable computers that happen to phone, and a zillion other interfaces and gadgets, but those are tangible effects of science and vehicles for it.

TV is a one way medium. And if the cycle were invented by God — Himself immortal — what a selfish old skinflint He turns out to be. Having to die stinks. Bill Forster January 4th, at Last night I was reading about one of the more mind blowing theories in contemporary physics.

This requires every instant of time to spawn a multiplicity of new universe instances containing every possible version of every possible event.

Consider the unfortunate incident of Brian Edwards being fatally hit by a bus. Other universe instances occur in which Brian sees the bus and avoids it. In those universes Brian carries on. Only in the universes where Brian misses the bus does he continue to perceive.

Plus the basic physics insists everything remotely conceivable including hopefully the eventual discovery of immortality treatments to keep some versions of Brian going forever does occur. We are all actually effectively immortal already! Believe it or not some very serious physists acually believe this to be true, or at least extremely plausible. Incidentally, I totally agree with you on the subject of religion.

I suppose given the rest of my post some will see irony in this statement. Sorry for the long post. Fascinating, Bill, and offering much more cause for optimism than the religious promise of an afterlife.

But why is it that so many people expect themselves and others to end their lives by being knocked down by a bus? David MacGregor January 5th, at You taught me to hate Muldoonism and vote in the 84 Labor govt — though I confess to voting for Bob Jones. I acknowledge the sadness in your initial post but Dr E.

Get past it and acknowledge the work you have done, the change you made and and your addition to the common good. Acknowledging Adam and Eve as a storytelling driver for your psyche brings into doubt the truth of your atheism.

Perhaps your egoism had been more finely honed with age than mine? There is still time for me. Ben January 5th, at It is something that appears to frustrate atheists intensely that someone cannot follow their finely tuned logic. I do not believe in God because the alternative is too awful or embarrassing to contemplate. There are many times when it would be much easier to have no belief or faith. The ecclesiastical pomp and ritual is largely irrelevant although I am reminded of the quotation;.

Many years ago I listened to a talk by an avowed atheist. He too had doubts. His doubts arose not from fear of lightning but the beauty that surrounded him. In particular he used the example of a rose where the number of petals in a rose are always in multiples of five.

This symmetry in some way maade him wonder whether or not there was some divine being. The argument does not sound that convincing in print but it made a lot more sense on hearing his talk. This is another of those arguments that are incapable of resolution. I would however note that there are many more instances of those who had no faith coming to a miraculaous conversion than those losing their faith and becoming atheists. That would be arrogant stupidity.

Unlike you, I see no evidence for the existence of god and therefore conclude that no god exists. I have no interest in challenging your belief in god. What would you regard as evidence? Unfortunately it does not work like that. I am not interested in trying to convince you merely in explaining my own thoughts, but to me the complexity and beauty of life is in itself evidence to me of a higher being. I generally find this a fruitless debate but at least I have respect for your views.

All too often the opinions of so called atheists are so virulent and extreme that they are not worth responding to. And before you say it, yes, there are many who believe in God whose views and the ways of expressing them are equally obnoxious.

In no other area in life do we accept as true things for which we have no empirical evidence. There are a great many people in whom I place my trust, or in whom, if you like, I have faith. But that is invariably because they have shown themselves to be trustworthy or reliable. Similarly, there are a great many things that I have not personally experienced, but I am reasonably certain, through consistent media reports or the reports of people I regard to be trustworthy or reliable, that these things do exist and can be experienced.

It might be argued that millions of people claim to have experienced God, but they cannot provide any evidence of what it is they have experienced. God is an unnecessary step in that logical progression. And you believers want to attribute all the good things to God and all the bad things to man.

Bill Forster January 5th, at Good question, and sadly this cliche was introduced by me and not included in my source material.

The source material included instead a thought experiment, based on Russian roulette.