Are modern religions beginning to crumble?

Post Reply New Topic

biggotry shouldn't be outlawed and neither should any religion. as i said before....the free market of thought and ideas will kill off these entities eventually. i'd really rather not see laws put in place for anything. reading about the law that new york passed the other day to ban the word "n****r" i thought was too much. freedom of speech means nothing if you're only gonna protect the speech you like. you have to protect the speech you don't like...the garbage you loathe....because if you make it illegal, you give it more power.

I think step 1 is doing away with religion.

see my post.

there are positive freedoms and nagative freedoms, the decisive factor is common law methodology, logically calling things down the middle. But if something is a negative for the common good in the growth of humanity then it should be done away with, as it has been throughout the cycle of evolution. Negative freedoms will only hold people back into tribalist behavior which will lead to wars, persecution, and division. To develope a happier society in the long run, we must seek the common ground truths in order to truely prosper. I believe in free elections but I do not believe in political parties. Much of this boils down to eliminating divisions.

Think for example, when you were a kid and your mom told you to go clean your room, but you wanted to stay out and play. Reguardless of what you felt like doing, you had a responsibility to go clean your room. Had you not taken that responsibility, you would have gotten whooped or grounded. So, it was in your common good, rather you felt like it or not, to clean your room. And in the long run it was the best thing for you to have done, because if you didn't you'd be facing the consequences.

Point is, bad people will make a bad society, this is why people should not have a right to be bad people. It's all about logically working towards making a utopian society possible.

What is YOUR utopian society? People believing demons cause disease?

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/2002SC-01.htm

People beliving that the world was created 6000 years ago and being ALLOWED to teach, spread and infect children with their ignorant and backward ways, when it has been DEMONSTRATED that the world and universe is BILLIONS of years old? Tell me just what would YOU ALLOW in YOUR society. This society is just as totalitarian as any other. They deem their PREJUDICES as MORALITY, christian homophobics are tolerated, etc ANIMALISTIC prejudices are tolerated, ignorant, backwardness is allowed to breed and spread, and then people like yourself go home wondering why the world is f****d up... because you dont have the BALLS to see that their is bad ideas and good ideas and the spread and infection of such ideas must be mitigated against to prevent the infected in society from killing itself. Look at how bush got elected for christ-sakes, off the backs of the ignorant.

He's justified his statements, you have not told us what is your conceptual arbiter that you're using to judge his statements is. If you are going to judge him you must provide an alternative that is better, tell us how you would run society. Do not simply fall back into relativism, try imagining yourself running a society. Just how would you do it? Would run it like commercialism? is it total money free for all? Do you run it without "laws" (codifications of prejudices?) (i..e. the illusion of freedom, since more resources = more rights and freedom and less = less rights and freedom?)

Last edited by Mordy on 03 Mar 2007, 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i understand the common good for society and i think enforcing freedom of speech is more important and critical for society than making laws to restrict speech and restrict religion.

What constitutes bigotry is highly subjective. Is, for example, racial quotas bigotry or a form "positive discrimination?"

To say that the European nations have "outlawed" bigotry is highly misleading. Muslims are seen in London carrying posters advocating the killing of "infidels" yet someone who crudely walks around with quotes from the Bible advocating stoning of homosexuals is quickly arrested.



This is interesting. You believe that religion in general is proven wrong. I do not. Further you believe that if religion is eliminated it will bring more peace. I do not. You believe your position is right, and apparently very obvious. I believe it is not only wrong, but is tyranical, and would only bring massive bloodshed. Clearly there is some kind clear difference brought on here for some reason. Where do you think it comes from?



Of course not, but the again I am not sure what this proposal has to do with. You are talking about speech restrictions that you still will not clarify as to precisely what you exactly mean. You also aren't willing to spell out the punishments that you would doll out when people resist as they inevitably would.



Please name some of these great people.



So instead of parties where people can have debates and primaries people should have ONE MAN to turn to that controls everything?



OK, now we have changed from one man to many people. For the record I think the American two-party Electoral system (which is really an accident) has resulted in remarkable stability, and it is removed you risk collapse of that system.



So as Marx said and Lenin believed, do we need a "dictatorship of the Proletariat?" Boy that really worked well for the Communists didn't it?



Good. Thank you.



What is a "down the middle fashion?" This reminds me of politicians who claim to want to remove the "partisan" nature of politics. It is utterly absurd. There is always going to be debate because people have different opinions, and everyone has a bias. That is perfectly OK, and acceptable.



Your own bias.



Did religion cause Mao Tse-Tung to kill 60 million Chinese? Did it cause Stalin to sign a non-aggression pact with Hitler? Did it cause him to kill 30-40 million Soviets? The removal of religion will not cause bad people to go away. Isn't it possible that the demonization of religion will cause people to hate them so much they may act violently against them? If religious people can act violently why can't atheists, especially if they need to act for "the common good" in establishing some "utopia."



Really? Pope John Paull II, and his successor have argued that the individual has the right to "search for his own path to God." This, in effect, means that if one wants to be an atheist, the person should be left in peace by the Catholic church's definition. The other Christian religions are not involved in calling for violence against "infidels." It is hardly the Dark Ages. Most Jews are not calling for the imposition of Jewish law on their own country, let alone the world.

Christians and Pagans are working together in southern Sudan, where they have been under the attack of Islamist slave-traders from the North.



Can you name any major Christian or Jewish figures that have called for renewed holy wars?

...

Dawkins on Eugenics coming up...

Here is the Richard Dawkins reference

(source quote)

You show me you are trapped in the cognitive sphere of ignorance: "subjective" and "objective" are religious words today, as if the word subjective actually had any kind of authority or power in its definition, define "subjective", define "objective" there are millions of different ways to define those words.

Not exactly: Lying to your kids is NOT SUBJECTIVE, telling your kids demons exist and jesus rose from the dead is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is lies contrary to SCIENCE. Telling your kids god hates fags because you read some book of lies written by rich men to control ignorant unthinking populations is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is lies.

Sure slurs like n****r, or whatever are "highly subjective" but I'd like to see you complain about mathematics or science when your sitting on a plain about its "subjectivity". If there are hard facts of the flow of air around the wing of an air plane their are hard facts about the flow of human behaviour in society.

Dude you not looking at my arguments objectively. Your wasting your breath calling me totalitarian because I say ignorance and ape-behavior, isn't condisive to a better society. This ape behavior is common since immorality that is backed up by eugenics. If a man walks into a bar and shoots someone, there isn't a "subjective" way of looking at it, he's wrong, end of discussion. These tribal behaviors lead to all kinds of problems, wars, poverty, hunfer, disease, everyone's trying to out-do everyone else or other groups rather than working together. You still haven't made a logical argument.

Maybe it's because common since is too complicated for you to understand, but everything doesn't have to be so black and white. If you let people behave like animals, society will never heel itself and problems will continue to occur.
I never said I don't believe in freedom, but when something is clearly prooven wrong only a fool would defend a lie. Just because you think it's more fun to battle with other groups or whatever, or tell lies, or to put others down, or to be selfish, etc doesn't mean it's good. Problem is nobody cares about what is good for humanity, they only care what is good for their own point of view or themselves. People aren't looking at the big picture, theyr picture stops at themselves.

As for creating bloodshed, your right in that most people would flip out about it, but, this is something that needs to be slipped in slowly. They can be unbrainwashed. Religion IS prooven wrong, it was prooven wrong when they found fossils that prooved in evolution.

I don't know how much longer I can continue. I am becoming seriously outnumbered. I will try to answer a few more posts (at least) to the best of my ability

Mordy, to tell you the truth, I don't have a utopian society, because I realize (and this is one of those things that I am 100% sure on) that a utopian society simply cannot be built. The reason I say this has nothing to do with religion.

No, I don't believe demons cause demons, and don't believe most Christians (at least on this continent) do.



I think the scientific evidence is extremely clear that the universe is billions of years old, and that dinosaurs existed, ect...But I honestly believing that it is 6,000 old and that dinosaurs didn't exist and substantially less harmful to me then believing that centralized economic ideas are effective or that 9/11was an inside job. The latter ideas could hurt me if they impact a person's vote. The former probably won't because I don't think the government needs to be involved with sciences generally anyway.



I would allow people to live in peace.



Shame on you, sir. Shame on you. Tell that to a political prisoner who is on a hunger strike on Cuba. Tell that to a religious prisoner of conscious who has been EXECUTED by the Chinese. People who live in real totalitarian regimes have looked for decades on this country as a place for inspiration and hope. Shame.



FREEDOM OF THOUGH!? How dare it even be considered?



Actually, if one looks at the number of births, it is the non-religious who are disappearing in the United States because of their extensive use of abortions and birth control.



Or the super-rich, what ever...



Why would I judge George Bush? What does he have to do this? You want me to criticize him? OK, his prescription drug bill was a terrible idea. There.



OK.



OK, but to be fair, in a country like the United States I would not "run society." I would have to run for President or something, and propose a program. This is why this doesn't make any sense. People in this topic are saying: "We must do X, and then do X in the world," in a absurdly simple manner.



I wouldn't, because I would make a terrible president. I don't have the social skills AT ALL to do the job. Can you imagine a President like me:

CHIEF OF STAFF: It's time to meet the Russian President?
PRESIDENT: Um....
COS: Sir?
PRESIDENT: Uh...You...uh...



You mean like an individual company? Would it have shareholders? Are we talking about a dictatorship still or not? Corporations, I think, are amoral although I am a supporter of the free-market because it is the most effiecent system available in keeping people from not being poor.

If I could have any systems it would be free-market, yes, but it would be a constitutional system, like the United States, with elections, like the United States. I might play around with the amendments* too, and I also think the markets are too regulated.

*I obviously don't have the power to do that nor would I want to.



NO!! !! !! !! This is insane. It would destroy the economic structure of the country and lead to massive poverty.



Oh, you mean no laws against, like murder? No, I would still like murder laws. But, again, the people's representatives would pass the laws. So they could pass laws I don't like (like a ban on smoking, or a sodomy ban) as long as they weren't unconstitutional.



Mordy, this is sure nonsensical since Japan and Taiwan, and Europe have so much less resources then Africa and Asia and look who has more freedoms!

I know people who believe in both evolution and religion.

ADDENDUM: Why is this so bloody important anyway? Isn't it more important how people behave then what religion they believe in? If a person's religion makes then be nice to people generally, then who cares whether it is nonsense. If atheism is absolutely true but it leads to people trying to build utopias in which millions die trying to get their then what precisely is accomplished?

I mean, if atheism is true everybody is dead anyway so what does it matter. You win the battle but in the end it's all meaningless.

Last edited by jimservo on 03 Mar 2007, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is truely a rediculous claim, where did you find this? I didn't know Sesame street had a science class lol. How are you gonna explain the billions of years of evolution PRIOR to Hitler? The crusades? Inquisitions? Wars?