A question for Atheists would you ban or outlaw Religion if

Page 4 of 9 [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

spongy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,055
Location: Patiently waiting for the seventh wave

14 Apr 2012, 4:14 am

abacacus wrote:
mikecartwright wrote:
America was founded on Christianity therefor Gay Marriage should be illegal in America.


False.

Just check the constitution. Separation of church and state.

Even considering that was true it would still be a fallacy.

There are way more mentions on the bible to the sanctity of a marriage and how marriages are a lifetime commitment. If you are going to use the bible argument you should first make sure that divorces are made illegal since its doing a bigger harm on what the bible teaches.

Since I havent seen any christian asking to ban divorces I call bs on this religious stance on same sex marriage
(Not encouraging anyone to do this just pointing out the double standard thats used with the religious stance on gay marriage/divorce)



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Apr 2012, 6:12 am

mikecartwright wrote:
A question for Atheists would you ban or outlaw Religion if you could ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism


Absolutely not. I would not in any way interfere with religion privately practiced. All of us, regardless of what religion we have or do not have construct some kind of thought and value system which defines (for each of us) our place in the Cosmos. It is a human thing. All humans with working brains do it to some extent or other. Since this kind of "religion" is subjective, it behooves us not to impose it on others in an obnoxious or harmful fashion. So if people very quietly practice their religion at home or in church (in a way that does not disturb the peace), I have no issues or problems with it at all.

Look at it this way: I would not want someone else to interfere with the way I think or look at the world. Therefore I do not interfere with others.

ruveyn



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

14 Apr 2012, 9:16 am

No, I would set up a secular state (I'm American).


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

14 Apr 2012, 11:09 am

mikecartwright wrote:
If you want to ban and or outlaw Religion why don't you just join the Communist Party ?


Even then, Albania was the only Communist country to ban religion (from 1967-1990).


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

14 Apr 2012, 11:24 am

mikecartwright wrote:
If you want to ban and or outlaw Religion why don't you just join the Communist Party ?




This makes no sense.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

14 Apr 2012, 12:22 pm

Rocky wrote:
No, I would not ban religion if I ran the government. People should be able to pursue religion if they want to. Besides, it has been tried, and has only succeeded in driving it underground.

Hopefully, all people will eventually evolve beyond "belief without reason." Government can not, nor should not attempt to mandate this evolution.

Other posts in this thread have effectively dealt with the notion that the USA was established as some sort of Theocracy.

On the tax question, I would say that those parts of Church activity which are charitable should not be taxed. The rest should be taxed.


I think they should be regulated like a normal 501(c)(3) NPO. Unless they want to be openly for-profit, in which case, like a normal corporation.



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

14 Apr 2012, 9:05 pm

Joker wrote:
The religoious community do pay taxes if your talking about churches not getting taxed is because a church is not a business but a place of whorship.


Worship
Warship
Whoreship
horses**t (IMHO)



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

14 Apr 2012, 9:08 pm

Rocky wrote:
No, I would not ban religion if I ran the government. People should be able to pursue religion if they want to. Besides, it has been tried, and has only succeeded in driving it underground.

Hopefully, all people will eventually evolve beyond "belief without reason." Government can not, nor should not attempt to mandate this evolution.

Other posts in this thread have effectively dealt with the notion that the USA was established as some sort of Theocracy.

On the tax question, I would say that those parts of Church activity which are charitable should not be taxed. The rest should be taxed.

I must again point you to the segregated society model I discussed earlier... there would be no underground, just freedom of religion on one side, and freedom from religion on the other... everyone is happy. Of course the religious side may wind up being alot like the DPRK in claiming that they own both sides... Though I guess that isn't a perfect analogy given that the DPRK is primarily Atheist.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

14 Apr 2012, 9:19 pm

webcam wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Nope, though I think we should keep religion out of the legal policies instead of using it as an excuse to keep things like gay marriage illegal.


I've been seriously considering the possibility that homosexuality is something they made up for religion and that it only exists because we are told it does. That we have this concept or belief in homosexuality programmed into us for control purposes and some people actually come to believe they are gay when they aren't gay. If I had gay feelings, I would start re-evaluating myself to see if I was really gay or not. There were times for me that I felt as though I might be gay as a kid, but I later realized I only felt that way because there was such homophobia persisting in my environment. I mean I was actually wondering... If I liked members of the same sex the way I like the opposite, what kind would I like... How embarrassing would it have been for me if I had actually had sex with a man? I had friends in HS and MS that actually did try it apparently... though I never saw it... Kinda sick to think someone could be lead into a sexual preference that isn't who they are or that might not even exist! It has the potential to be some serious BS.


...what? Just how high on what do you get before you start posting? Homosexuality has been around since long before christianity existed and will still be here when people finally get tired of it's innate dumbassery.

I'd like to see you try and reconcile the fact that animal species demonstrate homosexuality with what you just said as well.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

16 Apr 2012, 6:18 am

webcam wrote:
DC wrote:
I wouldn't ban religion but I would restrict it a bit more than it is now.

I would ban the making of any exemptions in laws on religious grounds.

I would remove the charitable status of religions and tax them as a business.

I would subject religions to the 'sales of goods and services act' - If I sell you a banana shampoo and claim it will lower your cholesterol, I am legal required to be able to prove that statement. If I sell you a holy banana and say that god guarantees it will cure cancer - the same laws should apply.

I would also hold preachers partially liable for the religiously motivated actions of their flock. - If you spend all your time preaching that devils posses children and then a mother that attends your church decides to torture her child to death on the grounds that they are possessed, the preacher of that church should also do some serious jail time.


Other than that, go nuts on the sky fairy front. :lol:


Rather it should read that if you make any claim that your religion can heal in and of itself and not with medical treatment or conspiracy to pay your medical bills... what a difficult argument this is to make it's almost as if in order to argue against religion, one has to argue with a sociopath. Nothing you say can have any effect on religion because religion says so... it's so fricken arrogant! Ok, let's try this again. Tests must be done in order to prove the efficacy of any claim made by religion or it may not be written. Jesus came back from the dead? Prove it! God can heal with magic and doesn't need human medicine? Prove it! It's amazing how short the bible would be if all of the statements about miracles had to be proven! Surely an all powerful God could do that sort of thing, right? Proof would be easy! All he'd have to do is say poof! and there would be proof! The claims of religion to affect disease must be evaluated by the FDA in the same manner as any other drug and compared with the efficacy of Atheism as a control.

Religion must also be banned from causing any disease to another person.

However in order to do this, religion pretty much has to be banned. Please don't take this as a replacement for my previous separated society... That is what I want, but for the regulation of religion on the religious side, they need to have rules and can't say what doesn't happen and can't conspire against citizens as this is criminal behavior.



I wouldn't actually go that far as by the same logic all works of fiction should also be banned along with abstract art etc etc.

As a liberal, (proper liberal not the american bastardisation of the word) my moral foundation is the harm principle, if you are not doing something that is likely to lead to harm occurring, let people do what they want.

But the modern day leftwing extremism that claims all views are equal and must all be respected as equally valid is morally bankrupt. Quite a few religious doctrines, dogmas and teachings are rather detrimental to other people's welfare and rights, that crap should be punished to the same extent as non-religious harmful behaviour is.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

16 Apr 2012, 6:49 am

No, I'd separate it completely from the State and enact laws that made religiously motivated crimes and bigotry against the law with mandatory minimum sentences.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

16 Apr 2012, 6:50 am

DC wrote:
But the modern day leftwing extremism that claims all views are equal and must all be respected as equally valid is morally bankrupt.

Ethical subjectivism =/= moral relativism


DC wrote:
Quite a few religious doctrines, dogmas and teachings are rather detrimental to other people's welfare and rights, that crap should be punished to the same extent as non-religious harmful behaviour is.

Ethical philosophies concerned with such notions as "welfare and rights" are no more objectively right than those concerned with demagoguery and superstition.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

16 Apr 2012, 7:12 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
DC wrote:
But the modern day leftwing extremism that claims all views are equal and must all be respected as equally valid is morally bankrupt.

Ethical subjectivism =/= moral relativism


Really?

Please explain the difference between the two in exquisite detail.

Quote:
DC wrote:
Quite a few religious doctrines, dogmas and teachings are rather detrimental to other people's welfare and rights, that crap should be punished to the same extent as non-religious harmful behaviour is.

Ethical philosophies concerned with such notions as "welfare and rights" are no more objectively right than those concerned with demagoguery and superstition.


I do not believe I made any statement claiming an absolute scientific truth for the basis of my views on 'welfare and rights'.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

16 Apr 2012, 7:39 am

DC wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
DC wrote:
But the modern day leftwing extremism that claims all views are equal and must all be respected as equally valid is morally bankrupt.

Ethical subjectivism =/= moral relativism


Really?

Obviously.
DC wrote:
Please explain the difference between the two in exquisite detail.


Or this:

Google

Laymen's: the FACT that ethical schools, based on underlying individualist precepts as they are, cannot be evaluated empirically,
is a far cry from, um, claiming "they all must be respected as equally valid".

Your assertion was inherently non-sensical.
Things not subject to logic are neither valid nor invalid.
Post-hoc rationalizations of psychological instinctive responses qualify.
Or is this actually the crux of your criticism of "left wing extremism"?


DC wrote:

I do not believe I made any statement claiming an absolute scientific truth for the basis of my views on 'welfare and rights'.

Ah, so on what basis do you proclaim that, by virtue of being "detrimental to other people's welfare and rights",
religious doctrines *SHOULD* be criminalized?

Did you mean to make a non-normative statement instead?


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Apr 2012, 8:10 am

TM wrote:
No, I'd separate it completely from the State and enact laws that made religiously motivated crimes and bigotry against the law with mandatory minimum sentences.


There is no objective way of determining intent. The commission of a crime (the event) and its perpetrator (he who done it) can be determined objectively. I would not permit the category of "hate crime" to exist legally.

ruveyn



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

16 Apr 2012, 9:56 am

Can intense devotion to a particular concept be outlawed? If so, wouldn't the outlawers themselves be creating a state religion, a religion of ultimate devotion to their banning of certain official religions? You can't outlaw strong belief, and actually enforce that law. You'd have to commence mass killings, and thus become a murderous dictatorship like we've seen throughout human history.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.