Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.
As for the argument, i think its hard to express a desire for freedoms and yet attack religion, regardless of its history. In fact, i believe that it is truly impossible to do so. i believe that religion is a completely ridiculous system and i loathe everything it leads to. Human beings invented religion, and by countless examples, it has proven to be just as flawed as human nature itself. It has lead to a control system, constantly being changed based on the ideas of the few to spread into the masses. Individuals have proven themselves to be, more times than not, to be more reasonable than people.
And because the idea can spread through the people so quickly, because of human nature, it often gets absorbed without individual critical thinking and reason. In this fashion, religion has been used more often than not as a tool for to control the masses for individual gain. Discrimination, crusades, hate, violence,denouncement of scientific advances and the rights of others, all have been the result of religion being used as a tool for the accomplishment of the few.
That is my take on religion, andThose are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of people. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do. i may hate religion, and i may hate many people who bible thump and try to save, for example, homosexuals from "eternal damnation", but i cant deny them the right to believe whatever they want and to express that feeling verbally. All i can do is to stop him from infringing on other's rights and hope, imo, that he comes to his senses.
|
The red part is the point, and I often have said that I do not care for what is going on in other peoples porivate cabinet or bedroom as long as they do nto rub it down other people's nose and do not try to enforce it into the public sphere, legislation, education, state politics and law-giving. The red part also illustrates partz of the answer why atheists use the internet to communicate and organsie themselves, becaseu u_crfank asked why there is so much of that on the internet. It is a reaction to relgion prssing more and more openly into society and law-making again, mainly pushed by Catholicism and fundamentalists in the US demonising secularism, and Islam demonising criticism as Islamophobia.
Freedom is not to be defended when it has been taken away, because then it is too late: it is gone. Freedom is to be used for defence as long as it is still there.
Where tolerance even tolerates intolerance or those putting their ideology above mutual tolerance (which basically is one and the same thing), the intolerant will overrun the tolerant and destroy them, and tolerance with them. What remains is the ruling of the intolerant.
The record of the three desert dogmas stands as it is, and it is not a positive one, by far not. The evil and wickedness comign from them is beyond doubt, the evidence reaches back from the present 1000 years, 2000 years, even 3000 years. And its alwaxyd the same damn darkness following in their wake. At court, the ben fit of doiubt is rcongised as long as their is no evidence given proving guilt. But the evidence in this case is present since a long time, in amyn forms and variations, in many stories and details. The issue is beyond all doubt, and is so since centuries and millenia. That'S why I do not grant them the benfit of doubt anymore, and call for the destuctio0n of the intolerant - before they can destroy tolerance. And it is this what the intolerant aim for, and what the church aims atr, and what the orthodox Jews waim at, and what Muhammedanism aims at: destruction of tolerance, and freedom. Or in more archaic language: EXTERMINATION OF THE FOREIGN TRIBES, and taking their land. That is the archetype behind it. And so I say: destroy the churches and mosques and synagogues, save the chidlren from being intoxinated with this brain poison, burn these damn things called bible, quran and Thora.
Note that I do not say: bring down hinduism, destroy buddhist centres. I m not really a fan of hinduism, and the caste system they have is an offence to all what is humane and ciuvilised, but what makes me tolerating Hinduism is that they do not mess up the world beyond their borders, and do not try for active subjugation or convertation of others - and that is a big plus for me, after all the religious aggressive violence we have seen being done in the name of Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Also, Buddhas teaching does not aid in seeking conquest, hate, intolerance and subjugation of others, and they leave you alone and do not missionise all around the globe, only open a centrte her eor there where they are welcomed, and even then they stay inside their compound and do not mess up society, do not seek to manipulate education sysetems, laws, and try not to gain a special status for themselves that make them special amongst all others. So yes: no problem to tolerate them as well.
And there are many other opinion traditions and schools of thinking and other religious cults towards which I feel no need to confront them - even when I disagree, even when I find them hilarious.
But the churches, Jewish and christian funda,mentlaism, Islam I explicitly exclude from this tolerance, since they show no tolerance towards others.
U_crank,
I called you an idiot above, and that was an unneeded call.
I apologize for that.
I still find your way of running your part of the debate absurd and contradicting in itself, I still do not accept the way you were weazeling. But the name calling was unneeded, and should considered to be unneeded in any other debate as well. So: sorry for that one, and I mean it.
But sorry only for that one.