Why Tolerate Religion?

[ImprobableJoe]

My friend, disagreeing with a generalisation by creating a new generalisation isn't very helpful.

Actually it is worse than that. It is a dishonest smear, made worse because of the lack of balls in the "some people" phrase. It is easy to pretend that you have a valid point by refusing to name names or present specific instances.

 

[Worldquest]

The reason why I said some people is firstly because if I named names it would result in a flame war, which is what some of you are dying for. Secondly you only have to read this thread to see that some people do have the attitiude that I described while others don't, hence "some people", and also, I find it quite funny how some people here like to make generalisations about religious people and theists in general but oooh, when there's even the slightest hint of a generalisation the other way round, all of a sudden it's wrong to generalize, which is of course hypocritical. And also, generalizations are useful, as long as you say "some people", rather than trying to make out that everyone in a particular group is the same.

So please, atheists (some), don't get all high and mighty when your generalizations are aimed at trying to paint all theists as being the same whereas mine aren't.

Besides, it's true. Some of you here would love the chance to control other people's thoughts by banning religion, when it's everyone's right to believe whatever they like.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Besides, it's true. Some of you here would love the chance to control other people's thoughts by banning religion, when it's everyone's right to believe whatever they like.

More flame-bait from you, or are you claiming to be able to read minds?

Post some evidence of your claim, or admit that you're just slandering the whole group while hiding behind "some people".

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

*sigh*

If some people here were to be totally honest, they'd just come out with it : "I want everyone to be an atheist and I'm prepared to violate their free speech, and I'm happy to try and disguise that in any way to make it sound reasonable".

This is extremely disingenuous assertion, Worldquest. I took you off of the ignore list momentarily because I thought you would engage in an open, honest discussion. I guess I was wrong. Welcome back to the list.

Okay, now give me your real thoughts. Honestly.

Perhaps I would, Prolescum, if you had shown a little more tact in this thread.

From your very first post, you have been unnecessarily vituperative. Your barbed speech makes me question your motives. Why should I be honest with you if you haven't been open and honest with me? This is not a good medium for rational discussion, so if you continue on this course, then I hope you enjoy being ignored for a while again.

I only know of 2-3 people on this entire board that fill that requirement [to suppress free speech of the religious].
There's the obvious (OP), [...]

I'm still awaiting a response to my challenge, UB. We could even do it in debate format for your penultimate enjoyment and totalitarian pleasure.

Hytegia, you are also guilty of disingenuous assertions. I have said it before and I will say it again:

This thread is not about attacking personal beliefs. It is not attacking the right to practice free speech of those beliefs. This thread is about administering justice to the crimes of religion/institutions of brainwashing.

So your challenge is null and void.

If you bring up this strawman challenge again, you will be placed on the ignore list as well. End of discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Let me describe how this thread will continue from this point on. We will discuss how to target brainwashing, by first giving it a well-defined definition, and then possible procedures of enforcement. Here is the new, revised framework for morally sound inculcation. Please give me your input.

Inculcation must take one of the following forms:
1) Inculcation of mentally competent adult, by mentally competent adult, by means that are agreed upon, OR
2) Inculcation of child/legal ward, by the mentally competent guardian(s), OR
3) Inculcation of child/legal ward, by licensed educator(s), with statute of government.
In addition, the inculcation must not be to injurious or socially subversive ends.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Let me describe how this thread will continue from this point on. We will discuss how to target brainwashing, by first giving it a well-defined definition, and then possible procedures of enforcement. Here is the new, revised framework for morally sound inculcation. Please give me your input.

Inculcation must take one of the following forms:
1) Inculcation of mentally competent adult, by mentally competent adult, by means that are agreed upon, OR
2) Inculcation of child/legal ward, by the mentally competent guardian(s), OR
3) Inculcation of child/legal ward, by licensed educator(s), with statute of government.
In addition, the inculcation must not be to injurious or socially subversive ends.

Well, most religious 'inculcation' falls under these 3 forms (most religious teaching happens in the home after all). The ones that DON'T end up applying to all sorts of things that most of us WANT to have around such as any private business where you can take your kids to learn about something, which is basically is all you take kids out to do, (learn about baseball at a baseball camp? inculcation. learn about dinosaurs or science at a private museum? inculcation. Learn about religion from a priest? inculcation. Learn about swimming from a swimming instructor? Inculcation.
To get around this you are handing out some sort of government approval on a case by case basis to determined if they are licensed to tell people about whatever, which would be expensive. And even then, if you going to hand out some sort of 'statute of government' to private schools, museums, swim clubs, etc, on what grounds will you deny it to other institutions like churches? It all ends up falling back on some narrow definitions of what is injurious or socially subversive, decided upon by some vague entity...

 

[Unwardil]

Would tend to agree. It would already be a crime to kidnap a child and force them to attend church against either their own will or the will of their legal guardian(s) so I don't think it requires it's own set of laws.

As for determining if parents are mentally fit, well, there's a whole giant can of worms I dare anyone to open. There's extreme cases where a parent can be demonstrated to be unfit but it would be a challenging position to take that in the absence of these extreme cases (where the child's physical well being is put it jeopardy) that the default position of 'mentally sound' should not apply by default and should require proof.

Or to say it in a less round about way, you can't take away people's rights to have and be responsible for their own children just because they believe stupid shit, no matter how much good it might do humanity as a whole. It's morally reprehensible.



And to the greater question as to why religion should be tolerated, in the short term, because it's powerful and in the longer term, because people are social beasts and most religions are at the very core social networks. Plus if you want to look at it in terms of memetic evolution, it's a good thing to have some totally irrational competition. Most of the really insane things get evolved out of religions anyway, oh they hang around as vestigial organs in the dogma but get largely ignored. Like appendixes, they sometimes cause unwanted infection, but that's what modern surgery is for and, metaphorically speaking here, think how many people would die of needless complications if it was decided that every should have their appendix out at birth.

Lastly, conflict is good. Conflict drives progress and progress gets me a biggerer fasterer internet at half the price I'm paying now. I dig that. So by tolerance of religion, I mean it should be allowed to exist and cause trouble but should never be allowed to win.

 

[Worldquest]

Besides, it's true. Some of you here would love the chance to control other people's thoughts by banning religion, when it's everyone's right to believe whatever they like.

More flame-bait from you, or are you claiming to be able to read minds?

Post some evidence of your claim, or admit that you're just slandering the whole group while hiding behind "some people".

Where are you getting your theory that when I say "some people" or "some of you" that I actually mean "all of you"? So you see, it is you who needs to post evidence of your theory, because I've made it quite clear that I do mean some of you. Now, if you have something to hide, ie you feel that I'm talking about you, then that's your problem. Methinks you protest too much.

 

[Prolescum]

Perhaps I would, Prolescum, if you had shown a little more tact in this thread.

Oh so you want to act like a petulant child and not answer the question because I'm like a verbal blunderbuss... You, sir, are hilarious.

From your very first post, you have been unnecessarily vituperative. Your barbed speech makes me question your motives. Why should I be honest with you if you haven't been open and honest with me? This is not a good medium for rational discussion, so if you continue on this course, then I hope you enjoy being ignored for a while again.

Unneccessarily? I don't think so. Standing up to bigots of any ilk is a duty. Anyway, I find your condescension intensely annoying, but I rarely bring it up. I attack what you say, then rub it in a bit for the lulz. You make it easy, though.

Go ahead, question my motives for being vituperative. Why do you think I'm completely against your stated views in this thread? Ask me why I think people who are, for example, explicitly against freedom of religion are bedroom despots... I think, despite what you say above, I've been very open and honest about my views on this topic.

You can ignore me should you so wish, I don't really mind (I'll probably still post as long as you spout your warped drivel; it's not just you who reads the thread you know) but your risible quest to defeat your detractors (i.e. nearly everybody) will fail with comic justice and only makes the thread even more entertaining to read.

When your politics reach puberty perhaps you'll realise that your impractical, unreasonable proposals are destructive in the extreme, but until then, hello - it's me again

If you think of religion more as a set of supernatural beliefs, instead of an institution of indoctrination, then the argument would fall apart.

:lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What's weird about this thread to me? I am the most anti-religion and anti-faith (in case anyone tried to make the distinction) person that I know in real life, and probably in the top 1% online as well. Nevertheless, I am 100% against any and all attempts to ban religious belief and/or any non-violent expressions of that belief. I'm strongly against the stupid sort of anti-Muslim bigotry that too many atheists engage in, including burka bans and other bigoted nonsense.

Yeah, religion is crap. It is pretty stupid in all of its forms. Nevertheless, people have a right to be stupid... no, really, they do! People have a right to believe things that other people disagree with, and even to act on those beliefs until they butt up against the beliefs and rights of others. They even have the right to try to convince other people that they are correct in their beliefs, as long as they don't cross other established lines.

The fact that we have this place to hash out these contrary views in a public forum with no threat of legal sanction is reason enough to respect the freedom of ALL beliefs, whether we like them or not.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

You're going to ban Religion.
I believe something - you're going to grant me that... But you're banning my ability to write about it (Press), speak about it (Speech), and assemble with other people who believe the same thing (Assembly).
Congradulations, you just banned the whole 1st Amendment in the name of the 1st Amendment...

I have no problems with people writing about their ideas, or talking about them. You can write about Wicca, talk about Wicca, appease Wiccan deities, create a Wicca blog, a Wicca YouTube channel, or knock on people's doors about Wicca. I have no problems with you talking to your friends and family about Wicca either. As long you don't "scare the horses" so to speak, or indoctrinate people (in particular, children). Indoctrination is what I have a problem with.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

I am UltimateBlasphemer. God is not the enemy, for we can find no enemy in an untestable "hypothesis". Indeed we cannot even proceed forward. The greatest enemy of mankind is mankind's fantasy of god.

I am not politically correct. I am not considerate about your feelings. If you are offended by anything that I say about your god or gods, then show me some evidence to support your claim.

Notice how I say 'show' your claim, not 'prove' it.

The only thing that we can prove for certain in this world are mathematics (1 + 1 = 2). Proof only exists in math. For everything else, we must rely on evidence. Evidence can only suggest, but that is the only objective way that we can ever obtain information about this world.

So if you dogmatically assert anything as truth without presenting reliable and verifiable evidence, and you are not talking about mathematics, then you are as good as lying and I have no reason to believe you.

Personal testimony does count as evidence. Humans are susceptible to personal bias and perceptive errors. In order to learn, we must doubt first. Especially when it comes to extraordinary claims.

Would go to court bare of the evidence that can promote your innocence, and ask the jury to have "faith" that you're innocent? I certainly hope not.

Doubt first.

 

[Prolescum]

So if you dogmatically assert anything as truth without presenting reliable and verifiable evidence, and you are not talking about mathematics, then you are as good as lying and I have no reason to believe you.

Religion can be objectively proven to damage society. It is not just my opinion. There is statistical evidence of religion negatively correlating to health and prosperity. There is a long history of religious crusades and dictatorship. In principle, it doesn't matter how many think the contrary.

Religion has NOT been objectively proven to damage society. You are confusing cause and effect - religion is often adopted by those in dire circumstances and therefore may indeed be practiced more by the unhealthy and non-prospering. It does not by any means prove that it CAUSES those things. That's just a fantastically poor 'science' and shows how blind you are to objectivity in this matter. In fact, studies have shown that people in those situations are given hope by religion and often do much better with religion than without. http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13369

Further, you are making the same mistake people make when accusing atheism of causing the tragedies in russia and the holocaust when you blame religion for war and dictatorships. There were wars before religion and there will be wars after. People in power use religion or nationalism or whatever the prevailing ideologies of the day are to support their wars and policies, but ultimately personal greed is the cause of most war. Unfortunately our society currently elevates greed and self-interest as the highest good, rather than treats it as what it is - the root cause of almost all human suffering.

I was referring to laws against child abuse as laws against indoctrination - you cannot threaten or physically harm children in the U.S. into believing something. Unless you are defining indoctrination as merely teaching children whatever ideologies, in which case no, I do not believe that teaching children something should be outlawed.

But the fact still remains that religion, defined as an institution of indoctrination, suppresses free thought and education. It may be true that religion didn't directly cause those countries misfortune, but it is certainly not helping them. Religion retards scientific and social progress in general.

So if you dogmatically assert anything as truth without presenting reliable and verifiable evidence, and you are not talking about mathematics, then you are as good as lying and I have no reason to believe you.

 

[Andiferous]

Indoctrination (or brainwashing) is not just an idea. It is an act that can inflicted upon someone. It is this act that I think is criminal. And telling someone not to do it is not good enough.

Some places do have brainwashing laws in place. Apparently the USA does not, but this might be of interest:

France, which has witnessed several suicide cults in recent years, has taken a wiser - and more direct - approach to brainwashing. The U.S., however, rather than following France's lead, tried to impede it from doing so. I am fully aware this is no environment within which to advocate the views of the French, but on this issue, they are on the money.

France drafted a law to address the brainwashing of children and mentally disabled adults by religious cults. The U.S. International Religious Freedom Commission, which I discussed in a previous column, complained, however, that the law singled out cults or sects for prosecution.

But, of course, religious freedom hardly includes the right to brainwash - or, particularly, the right to brainwash those who cannot adequately defend themselves against mental manipulation. Mitchell and his adult wife can believe anything they want. But what they did to Elizabeth Smart was unconscionable. And the line is not that difficult to draw.

In the end, France passed a bill that outlawed mental manipulation by any group, not just religious sects. It is probably just as well that the law was broadened - it now can be used against religious sects, individuals who may be French versions of Mitchell, and those manipulating children through secular beliefs.

But it is ironic, to say the least, that the U.S. made it its business to meddle in France's draft anti-brainwashing law, when its own states still lack any counterparts.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I am UltimateBlasphemer. God is not the enemy, for we can find no enemy in an untestable "hypothesis". Indeed we cannot even proceed forward. The greatest enemy of mankind is mankind's fantasy of god.

Evidence plz.

I am not politically correct. I am not considerate about your feelings. If you are offended by anything that I say about your god or gods, then show me some evidence to support your claim.

Of course, I despise what you say - but I defend to the death your right to say it... Unfortunately your stance is not as caring as mine (wait - does that make me, a religious person, more considerate about free rights than you? ).

Notice how I say 'show' your claim, not 'prove' it.

Duely noted that you passed the 8th grade, good sir.

The only thing that we can prove for certain in this world are mathematics (1 + 1 = 2). Proof only exists in math. For everything else, we must rely on evidence. Evidence can only suggest, but that is the only objective way that we can ever obtain information about this world.

And the 9th grade as well. I'm still awaiting your evidence from the first paragraph.

So if you dogmatically assert anything as truth without presenting reliable and verifiable evidence, and you are not talking about mathematics, then you are as good as lying and I have no reason to believe you.

Yet your claim is the absolute opposite - and you leave no room for others to think for themselves on this matter. I assume there are greater beings than us - you assume the likewise.

Personal testimony does count as evidence. Humans are susceptible to personal bias and perceptive errors. In order to learn, we must doubt first. Especially when it comes to extraordinary claims.

You leave no room for doubt though. Your entire theme was that of taking any extraordinary claims and arresting anyone who made them to anyone else.

Would go to court bare of the evidence that can promote your innocence, and ask the jury to have "faith" that you're innocent? I certainly hope not.

If you have ever, in your entire life, looked at anything about law whatsoever - you're innocent untill proven guilty. If there's no evidence to say that you're guilty, they can't even go into a courtroom! You can provide evidence that you are innocent - but the majority of your case will be providing facts and evidence that counter's the prosecutor's claim.

Is the mere fact that you don't understand how evidence works suggest that you don't even understand basic principles of law and justice? Of right and wrong?
To you, all Religious people are wrong untill bringing evidence otherwise - which is logical. But you also think that you are never wrong, and therefore since those who are Religious don't even deserve a trial to ask a jury to have "faith" that they are innocent.

Bring forth your evidence that I am guilty first, please.

Doubt first.

First doubt yourself, then doubt others.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Doubt first.

First doubt yourself, then doubt others.

I have doubted, but now the path is irrevocably clear.

Nature is a beautiful, but harsh, bitch.

Science brings humility, aids the wounded, instills knowledge, and answers the great questions that people have about the world they live in. Science is humanity's only hope for survival.

On the other hand, religion corrupts humanity's minds and produces selfish creatures like yourself. Creatures that favor personal freedoms over the well-being of others. Creatures that place their own personal pleasure and delusions above the utility of the other living things and even their own species. These type of selfish beings are rarely motivated to improve the status quo, and suck the life out of the science that allows them to exist comfortably.



The next time you cast your spells, or smoke your psychedelics, or whatever the fuck it is you do, think about that.

 

[lrkun]

First off, I should let you all know that I am an anti-theist atheist.

Many of you will agree that religion not only has a negative effect on the minds of people, but the very foundation of our modern society. Many of you will also agree that religion retards scientific progress, and therefore the betterment of humanity.

But as I understand it, many atheists think it is impractical or unwise to ban religion and cultism. My gut reaction is to disagree with this. Other than some speculated political backlash, I haven't really heard a good argument for this. Personally, I think tolerating religion is equivalent to promoting ignorance.

If you think we should tolerate religion, please share why.

Reciprocity. If we tolerate them, they must tolerate us. A no tolerate policy will result to war and violence.

 

[Prolescum]

@LRkun

Dude, I would suggest reading this entire thread... You'll quickly realise that the Ultimate Blasphemer is not interested in peace or toleration, only complete obliteration of the faithful. He is as much a fundamentalist as the Westborough baptists and the militant-lesbian-feminist-seperatists from a room of our own. That he is unable to recognise it, supposedly being a rational thinker and a sceptic, makes it all the more regrettable. It's also funny.

 

[lrkun]

@LRkun

Dude, I would suggest reading this entire thread... You'll quickly realise that the Ultimate Blasphemer is not interested in peace or toleration, only complete obliteration of the faithful. He is as much a fundamentalist as the Westborough baptists and the militant-lesbian-feminist-seperatists from a room of our own. That he is unable to recognise it, supposedly being a rational thinker and a sceptic, makes it all the more regrettable. It's also funny.

I see he seems like a close minded hate-you if you don't think like me kind of person.

 

[Prolescum]

Unfortunately. He's quite a clever chap otherwise.

 

[SirYeen]

You can't ban religion. You have to cause a shift in the minds of people. Education is the key imo.