A question for Atheists would you ban or outlaw Religion if

Page 5 of 9 [ 140 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

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.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Apr 2012, 11:27 am

ruveyn wrote:

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

If you gun someone down because they burned a qu'aran then I think its safe to say that it was motivated by religion.

If you carry picket signs at soldiers funerals that say "God hates fags" then when you shoot a homosexual soldier, I think its safe to say that it was religiously motivated.

I dislike the "thought crime" laws as much as you do, but I hate religion more.

DC
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Apr 2012, 11:40 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:

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

I'm afraid I'm not satisfied with your response, you bought up the subject of ethical subjectivism not equating to moral relativism and I asked you to explain your reasoning, I do not find it obvious and I would like to know your thinking behind your statement.

I can of course use google but google doesn't yet allow me to see the inside of your brain, hence why I asked you to explain it to me.

Quote:

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?

On the basis that we codify laws regarding what one person is allowed to say or do to another person but then make remarkable exceptions to those rules if you say or do the exact same things in the name of a sky fairy.

for example:

DC wrote:

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.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

16 Apr 2012, 12:59 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Can intense devotion to a particular concept be outlawed?

Of course. But can it be enforced? Lulz. No.

Ragtime wrote:

If so, wouldn't the outlawers themselves be creating a state religion, a religion of ultimate devotion to their banning of certain official religions?

Off is not a TV channel.

_________________
"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."

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

16 Apr 2012, 1:37 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Can intense devotion to a particular concept be outlawed?

Of course. But can it be enforced? Lulz. No.

Ragtime wrote:

If so, wouldn't the outlawers themselves be creating a state religion, a religion of ultimate devotion to their banning of certain official religions?

Off is not a TV channel.

It is actually the best TV channel

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

webcam
Velociraptor

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

16 Apr 2012, 6:08 pm

abacacus wrote:

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.

Homosexuality is mentioned in religion and religion is social pretense, so homosexuality could be just the same. Sure it's documented in nature in a few circumstances, but we document all kinds of lies for religion, so why not homosexuality as well?

webcam
Velociraptor

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

16 Apr 2012, 6:18 pm

DC wrote:

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.

So you want to take someone who has been fed religious doctrine and had their existence compromised and punish them for it? Huh? Why not just tell your daddy made up their religion? It seems like insanity to teach one thing to people and do something else, then expect people who have taken it to heart to make good decisions. It destroys lives. It causes harm, maybe to people you don't like, but Hitler didn't like Jews apparently. So what's the difference? Religion destroys lives that might have otherwise turned out different with more advanced medical care and the potential of life extension to replace what has really been lost in their experience. How can the people who made up religion ever compensate people for the harm done by it? It is an existential harm greater than any other. The only problem I see with immortality is that when it comes, the mindset that comes with it will virtually erase the need for religion and a whole lot of people who have been lied to are gunna be pissed off... so why not make peace with them and make it for them... They are those who need it most afterall. It seems alot more ethical to me than letting people live inside a lie and die never seeing the outside for what it is.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

16 Apr 2012, 6:18 pm

Non Theists all ready have some unpleasant views on theist and vice versa baning religion would cause a war all over the planet thank about how many religions are in the world banning them all would not end well and a great war would break out.

webcam
Velociraptor

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

16 Apr 2012, 6:19 pm

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.

See my post to DC.

webcam
Velociraptor

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

16 Apr 2012, 6:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:

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.

So if someone kills an Atheist because they don't like Atheists or can't accept their non-beliefs, what do you call it? Personally, I'd like a definition of hate crime that allowed it to protect more broadly... Rather, give hate a definition and let people show that there was hate to prosecute in such a way.

webcam
Velociraptor

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

16 Apr 2012, 6:30 pm

Ragtime wrote:

How about my suggestion of a segregated state where religion gets to live in towns specifically noted for allowing religion and Atheism could live in other towns. The laws of the religious would have bearing only unto themselves and not to atheists. The two societies would live with their own laws as different states under a Federation which would specifically protect all life and be otherwise limited.

webcam
Velociraptor

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

16 Apr 2012, 6:33 pm

Joker wrote:

No need for war if you have a segregated state as I suggested... read it!

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

16 Apr 2012, 6:35 pm

The point is you take away all world religions you open up pandors box and will have to deal with a bunch of angry zealots not just christians jews or muslims but all religoious people would ban together to fight against the ban of religion.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

16 Apr 2012, 6:47 pm

You can not create a entire state for the religious do you know how many religions their are in the world? It would not be possible to fit them all on one side and the non theists on another side it wouldn't work.

roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,192
Location: Indiana

16 Apr 2012, 6:53 pm

webcam wrote:

Or people could tough it out and learn one way or another that they can live together without having to kill each other instead of sending everyone off to live in their own communities where they won't have to (god forbid) coexist with people who think differently than they do.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

16 Apr 2012, 7:01 pm

Where would you put all of the religious? The middel east their are so many religions in the world some of them don't do any harm at all like wicca you never see them doing anything evil they just practice their faith in peace.

Page 5 of 9 [ 140 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

A question for Atheists would you ban or outlaw Religion if Post Reply New Topic

A question for Atheists would you ban or outlaw Religion if