Two central questions [Archive]

LSD

17th November 2006, 20:12

Shouldn't people get to decide for themselves if they will be spiritual or follow a religion?

Of course.

No one else is obliged to "respect" their beliefs and they certainly shouldn't expect public policy to reflect their superstitous nonsense, but if they want to believe that the world is flat and rests on the back of a giant Hershey bar, it's their fucking business.

Freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, etc.. these are fundamental human rights that must lie at the heart of any free society.

And yes, that includes "public manifestations of religion", it even includes use of public resources since, after all, everything will be a public resource under communism.

Obviously no priority should be given to "churches" or "mosques, but if someone wants to turn their basement into a "worship space", no one else has any right to intervene.

Part of freedom is accepting that you won't always agree with the decisions that you neighbours make. I can't for the life of me imagine why someone would want to spend their free time praying to "Allah", but then I can't imagine why someone would want to play Dance Dance Revolution either.

In both cases, however, it's none of my business (although I certainly have the right to make my opinion known!)

Should parents be allowed to teach their children religion

It depends on how you mean.

Obviously we need to be very careful in how much we interfere in the private lives of individuals and their families, lest we get into the very dangerous area of elite social control

But every society places liimits on what parents can and cannot do. Unlimited parental rights simply don't exist. The only question is at which point do we draw the line.

Besides, this notion that parents have any special rights to their offspring merely by virtue of being genetically related is a rather invented one. For most of history, children were raised communaly, that only changed once money entered the picture and caring for "someone else's" child became synonymous with caring for "someone else's" property.

Communist society would most assuredly not treat the "nuclear family" the way that capitalist society does.

But, that said, your question can still be directly answered.

Look at it this way, a father who teaches his daughter that she must wear a garbag bag over her head at all times lest the world see her shameful and dirty body would be convicted for psychological abuse; if it's a burka, though, he's just "excersizing his faith".

Obviously that hyporcrisy needs to stop.

Oppression is oppression and subjugation is subjugation. And raising children with no understanding of the world or with a self-destructive view of life is subjugation. That's why parents cannot be allowed to raise their children racist, and it's why they cannot be allowed to raise them without a basic sense of rationality.

It's not religion, you see, that's the problem, it's "faith". It's socializing an individual to sees blind belief as a substitute for thought.

If parents, or any other caregivers, want to express their thoughts on the universe to their childre, I really couldn't care. So long as they primarly impart an understanding of reason and logic. So long as the child grows up in an environment that encourages questioning.

That way, when he grows up he can make his own decisions ...whatever those might be.

and if not, what else are they not to teach their children

Anything that would seriously limit their ability to become a functional competent rational individual.

There's no "list" per se, but it's fairly easy to figure out what is and what isn't harmful to a developing mind.

who are you to proclaim this?

I'm nobody, but then I don't matter; it's the ideas which count.

Besides, who is a parent to "proclaim" what their children can or can't know? What gives them the right to play this fundamental role in their development?

Again, we can't go overboard in controling what children are and aren't exposed to, but it's essential that we ensure that everyone, from as early an age as possible, is exposed to basic reasoning.

Everything else flows from that.

Unless the child is over a certain age, and asks. Then he or she should be taught about all religion since ~4000 BCE without bias to one or another, and all of their crimes noted.

That's absurd.

No society can mandate that any discussion of something "must" include a complete history of its crimes and transgressions. Not only would such a requiement be a fundamental breach of human rights, but it would also be monumentally stupid.

When a child casually asks about religion, they don't want to hear about 4000 years ago, and if you start telling them about fucking Sumerian worship practices and Aztec sacrifices, they're going to up and leave ...and for very good reason.

The problems with religion speak for themselves, especially to someone who's been raised in an environment of rationality and skepticism. "Faith" is such obvious garbage that telaying the whole bloody history of "faith" is overkill. It's unnescessary information and it accomplishes nothing.

Again, we need to be incredibly conservative in how we approach this issue. Our aim shouldn't be to breed a "better human", just to ensure that everyone is given the best possible chance to succeed.

That doesn't mean detaling the inquisition to every 7 year old with a question; it does mean raising children secularly.

manic expression

17th November 2006, 22:18

Shouldn't people get to decide for themselves if they will be spiritual or follow a religion?

They should.

Should parents be allowed to teach their children religion and if not, what else are they not to teach their children and who are you to proclaim this?

Yes, but a society needs to facilitate a child's growth so that s/he is able to make his or her own decisions and conclusions on these questions. When people are allowed to grow up without the heavy pressure of a religion which they are basically forced to accept, that makes for a healthier life all around. As part of my first response, people should be able to decide for themselves how they approach religion, and a big part of that is letting them do so in an honest manner.

So, in communist society, if a child asks about communism, then he or she should be taught about all attempts at communism and state socialsim, since A.D. 1900 without bias to one or another, and all of their crimes noted.

And no argument will be allowed that these attempts were not "REAL" communism. If Jesus returned he'd probably throw up over what so many preachers have done in his name. If Marx returned he'd probably do the same over Stalin and countless others.

I'm not a religious person, so I don't have an axe to grind. But if you assign ALL of the crimes done in the NAME of religion, you also have to assign ALL of the crimes done in the NAME of communism.

Otherwise, in the new communist society, we shoot you for academic dishonesty.

No. History should be taught to children whether they ask or not. The past attempts at communism are a part of this, and so they would be covered. These "crimes" that you speak of would obviously be taught, but without bias. In this way, they can learn from this, because if they know the reasons why communism didn't succeed in some past instances, they will know how to make it succeed in the future. Oh, and they'll also know how even the corrupt and estranged USSR was able to provide the people with better healthcare than capitalism.

A few things to bear in mind a.) revolutions are never blood-less, which has nothing to do with justification (and I'm sure the real A. Hamilton would agree); b.) Famines are hardly "crimes of communism"; that's without true bias, something you neglected.

In a communist society, the ignorance you just showed would not be prevalent and would not be taught.

ichneumon

19th November 2006, 18:01

one of the precepts of engaged buddhism is this:

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views by authority, threat, money, propaganda or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."

so, we teach our children about all religions and let them make up their own minds. it's the only respectful thing to do. besides, we want our children to be self-actualized fully operational human beings, not mental-clone robots.

and, just what if, this were the policy in public education? what if religion were a required subject in schools, where each child is taught about all the major world belief systems very early, and the historical and minor ones soon enough? teach them pray, mediation, chant, yoga, all of it. this should function as an immunization against fanaticism. just a thought.

uber-liberal

19th November 2006, 18:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 03:28 am

Shouldn't people get to decide for themselves if they will be spiritual or follow a religion?
Yes. In private.

Should parents be allowed to teach their children religion and if not, what else are they not to teach their children and who are you to proclaim this?
Every society limits freedom of speech in some measure.

In communist society,

public racism will not be permitted,
public sexism will not be permited,
reactionary support of capitalism will be limited,
public manifestations of religion will not be permitted.

Basically, all churches must be demolished, and all religious symbols (that have not evolved into secular meaning) should be removed from public buildings. No preaching in public, and no teaching religion to children, as it is child abuse.

Unless the child is over a certain age, and asks. Then he or she should be taught about all religion since ~4000 BCE without bias to one or another, and all of their crimes noted.
I hate to break it to you, but your substituting one form of institutionalized intolerance for another.
And child abuse? I don't know about that... Teaching kids that one specific religion is the ONLY truth is pure horseshit, fair enough. But ALL religion? Knowledge is knowledge. It's the user of it that determines whether or not it's good or evil.

And demolishing churches and public displays of faith, while I would probably enjoy it, is just too far. Let the faithful follow their folly, as long as we have the same freedoms.
Personally I would love to go anywhere for sunday breakfast without being absconded by church-goers snarling for a seat in an overcrowded and overpriced restaurant. Catholics and Mormons (nothin' like CULTISH christianity to make your hair curl...) are usually the worst.

MrDoom

19th November 2006, 21:41

And child abuse? I don't know about that... Teaching kids that one specific religion is the ONLY truth is pure horseshit, fair enough. But ALL religion? Knowledge is knowledge. It's the user of it that determines whether or not it's good or evil.
Do not confuse "teaching religion" and "teaching ABOUT religion". They are not the same.

And demolishing churches and public displays of faith, while I would probably enjoy it, is just too far. Let the faithful follow their folly, as long as we have the same freedoms.
Perhaps then we should make some sort of reservation for the really insistant preachers... However, they would not be able to take their children, and it might be a good idea to sterilize the men. What they would do within the "religious zone" would be completely their own business, even if they started killing each other for their god.

uber-liberal

19th November 2006, 23:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 09:41 pm

And child abuse? I don't know about that... Teaching kids that one specific religion is the ONLY truth is pure horseshit, fair enough. But ALL religion? Knowledge is knowledge. It's the user of it that determines whether or not it's good or evil.
Do not confuse "teaching religion" and "teaching ABOUT religion". They are not the same.

And demolishing churches and public displays of faith, while I would probably enjoy it, is just too far. Let the faithful follow their folly, as long as we have the same freedoms.
Perhaps then we should make some sort of reservation for the really insistant preachers... However, they would not be able to take their children, and it might be a good idea to sterilize the men. What they would do within the "religious zone" would be completely their own business, even if they started killing each other for their god.
...sterilize the men... you can't be serious, can you?

Strong-arming people into a set of beliefs is wrong, no matter how you slice it. And forced sterilization... pure fascism. It smacks of the whole Weed 'em out or Breed 'em out philosophy.
While I agree religion is a pure waste of time, all except a prayer/meditation style of inward thought, but that circumnavigates a godhead altogether, disallowing others their ignorance is not a right anyone or group should have. Education is key.
Limit public speach and you limit the voice of the citizenry in whole. Outlaw door-to-door bible thumping and I'll probably have to name my first born after you. Damn soul-solicitors...

And the kids again... I was taught from a very early age about respect for other religions without being taught about the religions at all. I was raised Lutheran, went atheist, found buddhism a great philosophy and started meditating, but I never denounced christians as people who are less worthy to their rights than I.
My point is if I can be taught to have tolerance, why can't others?

No gods, etc. You have to let others come to that conclusion on their own. That's the only way it becomes valuable to the individual.

EnragÃ©

20th November 2006, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 09:41 pm

And child abuse? I don't know about that... Teaching kids that one specific religion is the ONLY truth is pure horseshit, fair enough. But ALL religion? Knowledge is knowledge. It's the user of it that determines whether or not it's good or evil.
Do not confuse "teaching religion" and "teaching ABOUT religion". They are not the same.

And demolishing churches and public displays of faith, while I would probably enjoy it, is just too far. Let the faithful follow their folly, as long as we have the same freedoms.
Perhaps then we should make some sort of reservation for the really insistant preachers... However, they would not be able to take their children, and it might be a good idea to sterilize the men. What they would do within the "religious zone" would be completely their own business, even if they started killing each other for their god.
:blink:

please
read some marx on this

religion is the product of material circumstance, of need, of want, a sort of "cure" for the sorrow in the world. People grasp for religion when real life doesnt cut it for them.

To call upon people to revoke their superstition is to call upon them to rise up against the material circumstances which causes them to need such a fake-happiness, such a "cure" for their sorrow.

Therefore, post-revolution, religion as we know it today will whither away.
Sure there will always be those who need this idea of a god, always people who theorise, philosophise about some sort of prime mover, some sort of being which started it all (whether abstract or antropomorphic)
but religion as we know it will largely cease to be, cease to be a threat to emancipation.

MrDoom

20th November 2006, 00:54

And if the worshippers move for counter-revolution?

EnragÃ©

20th November 2006, 00:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 12:54 am
And if the worshippers move for counter-revolution?
you crush, utterly smash the counter-revolution

thats why we have the worker's militias now dont we.

colonelguppy

20th November 2006, 02:02

censorship is cowardice.

Cryotank Screams

20th November 2006, 02:15

But ALL religion? Knowledge is knowledge.

Religion is not knowledge.

It's the user of it that determines whether or not it's good or evil.

"I have slain all gods,....for the sake of morality!"-Friedrich Nietzsche.

And demolishing churches and public displays of faith, while I would probably enjoy it, is just too far. Let the faithful follow their folly, as long as we have the same freedoms.

Exactly the train of thought that keeps the bourgeoisie in power, and has halted science for centuries.

MrDoom

20th November 2006, 02:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 02:02 am
censorship is cowardice.
Every society censors absolute free speech.

It's WHAT is being censored that must be examined.

Religion is self-delusion and cowardice.

uber-liberal

20th November 2006, 13:02

Religion is not knowledge.

Sure it is. You just don't find it useful, and that's a good thing. But knowing about a religion is different than knowing it and why you don't agree with it. It's important to understand it in order to address the issues of it's existance, not just blanket, knee-jerk reactions.

"I have slain all gods,....for the sake of morality!"-Friedrich Nietzsche.

Okay... here's my quote for you...

"I will choose how to decide; I will choose free will." - Rush, "Free Will"

Exactly the train of thought that keeps the bourgeoisie in power, and has halted science for centuries.

Exactly the argument of those not willing to do anything more than ***** and moan about religion instead of actually doing something constructive with their time like educate people about their views in a non-confrontational (let's re-emphasize that; NON-CONFRONTATIONAL) manner. Blame others for a lack of scientific advancement. Go ahead... But remember; Einstein was a very spiritual Jew, Copernicus and Galilleo were excommunicated for showing how the heavens actually worked, and if it weren't for Martin Luther in 1514 AND Martin Luther King, Jr. in the '60's, mankind would be much further down the wormhole than we are now.

LSD

20th November 2006, 13:32

Every society censors absolute free speech.

Every class society, you mean. Every oppressive exploitive statist tyranny throughout history.

But revolution isn't about mimicking the crimes of the past; it's about creating something better.

Cenorship is not only philosophically contrary to everything that communism stands for, but its also practically incompatible with a democratic society. A people cannot censor themselves. Someone has to do it for them.

And whether that someone calls himself "state commissioner" or a "people's commissar", the implicit subjugation is the same.

ichneumon

20th November 2006, 15:41

please
read some marx on this

religion is the product of material circumstance, of need, of want, a sort of "cure" for the sorrow in the world. People grasp for religion when real life doesnt cut it for them.

given adequate material circumstances, suffering still exists. given sufficient food, shelter and medical care, one will still grow old, weak, sick and die. furthermore, life without direction is pointless. people are not plants, to soak of nutrients and grow without wondering "why?".

this is what religion is for. it allows one to have satisfaction in life with only adequate material circumstances, without greed for more. it gives a peace and joy that does not come from buying or owning or getting or winning.

when one is deprived of necessary support, yes, one tend to reach for religion. and in the past religion has been perverted in order to maintain oppression. is the purpose of nuclear energy atom bombs?

you can't end capitalism without religion, because people with adequate material support and no joy are still miserable. it's not enough - and the communist 'vision' isn't well developed enough to take the place of real religion.

20th November 2006, 15:55

Should parents be allowed to teach their children religion and if not, what else are they not to teach their children and who are you to proclaim this?

Parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their children anything apart from basic language acquisition in the first couple of years of life...

Education should be the responsibility of society in a democratic, pluralistic fashion, and parents can't provide that. Just cause you gave someone life doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate them. The belief that it does is just part of the oppressive assumption of the patriarchal family that children are their parents chattel.

MrDoom

20th November 2006, 16:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:41 pm

please
read some marx on this

religion is the product of material circumstance, of need, of want, a sort of "cure" for the sorrow in the world. People grasp for religion when real life doesnt cut it for them.

given adequate material circumstances, suffering still exists. given sufficient food, shelter and medical care, one will still grow old, weak, sick and die. furthermore, life without direction is pointless. people are not plants, to soak of nutrients and grow without wondering "why?".

this is what religion is for. it allows one to have satisfaction in life with only adequate material circumstances, without greed for more. it gives a peace and joy that does not come from buying or owning or getting or winning.

when one is deprived of necessary support, yes, one tend to reach for religion. and in the past religion has been perverted in order to maintain oppression. is the purpose of nuclear energy atom bombs?

you can't end capitalism without religion, because people with adequate material support and no joy are still miserable. it's not enough - and the communist 'vision' isn't well developed enough to take the place of real religion.
Fear and hatred seem more common than superficial, delusional "joy" within religion.

EnragÃ©

20th November 2006, 17:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:41 pm

please
read some marx on this

religion is the product of material circumstance, of need, of want, a sort of "cure" for the sorrow in the world. People grasp for religion when real life doesnt cut it for them.

given adequate material circumstances, suffering still exists. given sufficient food, shelter and medical care, one will still grow old, weak, sick and die. furthermore, life without direction is pointless. people are not plants, to soak of nutrients and grow without wondering "why?".

this is what religion is for. it allows one to have satisfaction in life with only adequate material circumstances, without greed for more. it gives a peace and joy that does not come from buying or owning or getting or winning.

when one is deprived of necessary support, yes, one tend to reach for religion. and in the past religion has been perverted in order to maintain oppression. is the purpose of nuclear energy atom bombs?

you can't end capitalism without religion, because people with adequate material support and no joy are still miserable. it's not enough - and the communist 'vision' isn't well developed enough to take the place of real religion.
read what i said again

Sure there will always be those who need this idea of a god, always people who theorise, philosophise about some sort of prime mover, some sort of being which started it all (whether abstract or antropomorphic)
but religion as we know it will largely cease to be, cease to be a threat to emancipation.

oh and no
its perfectly possible to end it without religion. Communism is based firmly in material reality.

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 19:30

LSD

20th November 2006, 21:25

A world or society that a few of you clowns dream of, where parents are somehow forbidden from teaching their children anything, is not going to happen.

We already live in that world.

Parents aren't free to teach their children "anything", society sets limits as to what it deems acceptable and what it deems abusive. We're just talking about adjusting that definition; and not even that radically.

Again, a father who teaches his daughter that she must wear a garbag bag over her head at all times lest the world see her shameful and dirty body would be convicted for psychological abuse; if it's a burka, though, he's just "excersizing his faith".

You can't honestly tell me that that isn't hypocritical. Nor that if we weren't socialized to "respect" religion, that double standard would be tolerated.

Raising children with no real conception of reason, with no ability to interact at a mature level, is abuse and cannot be tolerated. Again, it's not theism that's the problem, it's "faith".

Children taught dogma are prevented from becoming functioning adults and often must endure decades strain before they can achieve the level of basic reasoning that healthy adults start out with.

Any just society has a duty to prevent that kind of inhuman assault.

Your proclamations and prognostications are made more absurd by the fact that material conditions will never answer the questions religion seeks to answer

Religious attendance rates have been dropping pretty consistantly for decades. Most of the west already live as practical atheists. Religious "values" are quickly becoming old-fashioned and science is pretty universally considered more useful than "faith".

No one has any right to force their convicions on another, whether those convictions are religious or atheistic, but religion is dying all on its own. It's certainly not dead yet, but the trend is pretty obvious.

Capitalism just isn't conducive to "faith"-based philosophies. It's too materialistic, too practical. And it puts way too much attention on the pysical profitability of the here-and-now.

It doesn't matter if communism never comes, capitalism is killing religion all on its own.

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 22:03

We already live in that world.

No, we do not.

Parents aren't free to teach their children "anything", society sets limits as to what it deems acceptable and what it deems abusive. We're just talking about adjusting that definition; and not even that radically.

Yes, it is quite radical and quite nonsensical.

Again, a father who teaches his daughter that she must wear a garbag bag over her head at all times lest the world see her shameful and dirty body would be convicted for psychological abuse; if it's a burka, though, he's just "excersizing his faith".

Very cute. The problem is that the burka is an understood expression of faith, the garbage bag is not. They are only similar in your mind because you equate the two.

You can't honestly tell me that that isn't hypocritical. Nor that if we weren't socialized to "respect" religion, that double standard would be tolerated.

In your world it's a double standard, when one uses common sense it is not.

Raising children with no real conception of reason, with no ability to interact at a mature level, is abuse and cannot be tolerated. Again, it's not theism that's the problem, it's "faith".

There's no evidence that people who are taught to be religious lack reason. I know plenty of reasonable religious people. You're simply dictating that based on your opinion religion is unreasonable, therefore teaching it is abuse. This is nothing but a proclamation based on your own opinion.

In fact if you consider Pascal's wager, acting as if there is a God can be considered reasonable.

You're just like all the other ideologues, religious or not: you just happen to personally know what is reasonable or rational, and anyone who disagrees is an irrational idiot. Right?

Children taught dogma are prevented from becoming functioning adults and often must endure decades strain before they can achieve the level of basic reasoning that healthy adults start out with.

This is very rich. Presuming you are a communist, you rail away in support of an ideology that has shown time and time again that it fails, yet you have faith that it will one day work based on your own perception (fantasy) of how it could work. That is dogma based on faith. Your proclamations about the evil of capitalism are really no different than some bible-thumpers proclamations about the evil of pre-marital sex. You, like the bible-thumper, spend ample portions of your life shouting at the wind about how everyone would be better off if we just gave in, got smart, and shared your faith in a system for which there is little supporting evidence.

Any just society has a duty to prevent that kind of inhuman assault.

No just society would take the steps necessary to prohibit people from teaching religious values to their children.

Religious attendance rates have been dropping pretty consistantly for decades. Most of the west already live as practical atheists. Religious "values" are quickly becoming old-fashioned and science is pretty universally considered more useful than "faith".

Then what are you complaining about?

Capitalism just isn't conducive to "faith"-based philosophies. It's too materialistic, too practical. And it puts way too much attention on the pysical profitability of the here-and-now.

Incorrect, actually. Even communists on this board note, occasionally, that humans have both a need to satisfy individual desires and benefit the community. This is precisely why the religious donate so heavily to charity. Did you know that the overwhelming majority of rebuilding assistance for victims of Hurricane Katrina has come not from governmental sources but from charity? Look up Andrew Carnegie's thoughts on the matter.

Again, you just proclaim that reality is as you say it is without giving it much thought.

*Yawn*

RevMARKSman

20th November 2006, 22:37

Should

Woah woah woah.
There is no way to justify morality, no "objective" way to determine right or wrong.

No matter how many times you prove a fact correct, there is no way to make the transition from an "is" to a "should."

Just because someone believes 2+2=5, or that God exists, does not make them or actions founded on those morally wrong. It makes them incorrect, yes; we ridicule them, and rightly so; but there is no way to determine what "should" or "should not" be done in any situation.

"Should" is a concept humans MADE UP. There's not even a definition for it that doesn't eventually become circular. Even "better", without any prepositional phrases or modifiers, is a completely subjective word. Say Car 1's top speed is 120 km/h. Car 2's top speed is 150 km/h. You still cannot make the transition from "Car 2's top speed is greater than that of Car 1" to "Car 2 is better than Car 1" because the definition of "better" has nothing to do with speed, or hardness, or anything that can be measured.

The same thing applies to "should." You can say "More people will be happy if I choose Option B than if I choose Option C." but there is still no transition to "I should choose Option C." The definition of "should" is entirely too vague and all-inclusive. For all we know it has nothing to do with happiness. Who decides what "should" means, anyway, or what "morally right" is? There is simply no way to convert "is" to "ought" without some sort of bullshit. Conclusion: Morality is entirely unfounded. Do whatever you want, help humanity, help yourself, but don't pretend there's some deep underlying reason for it. It's just all on whim, or what you want the outcome of something to be.

LSD

20th November 2006, 22:38

No, we do not.

Of course we do; parents today are not free to teach anything they want to their children. That's a fact.

This thread is about whether or not the already limited right of parentage should be further limited and, if so, how; not over whether or not that right should be limited in the first place. That debate was settled a long time ago.

Very cute. The problem is that the burka is an understood expression of faith, the garbage bag is not.

"Understood" by whom?

Who's to say that a Muslim's "faith" is more valid than the garbage-bag man's? More importantly, what's the practical difference?

Being an "expression of faith" is not sufficient justification for abusive acts. Children are taken away from cultists all the time, despite the fact that a cult by nature is very much an "expression of faith".

So, I must ask, where is it that you draw the line? Is it history that's the determining factor for you? Plastic shame bags are wrong, but cloth ones are accetable? What, because Islam has more of a "tradition" than garbage-bag-ism?

Exactly how is that not a double-standard?

Abuse is abuse is abuse. The "expression" behind it is irrelevent.

In your world it's a double standard, when one uses common sense it is not.

"Common sense" tells us that if the end result is the same, the motivations really don't matter. I don't care about someone's "faith", I really don't. I just care about the potential damage that it could do to someone else.

And, yes, raising girls to wear a Burka with everything that goes with it is an intrinsically abusive act. "Faith" or not, it's demonstrably harmful. Just like being raised by Yahweh bin Yahweh was demonstrably harmful.

Again, I don't trust the bourgeois state to dictate what is or isn't "acceptable" on so touchy an issue as religion and culture, but in postrevolutionary context, there's no reason that children can't be better protected.

There's no evidence that people who are taught to be religious lack reason.

There's certainly plenty of evidence that religious people are less reasonable than nonreligious people. Remember, religious in this context means functionaly religious, not religious in name but atheist in deed.

People who truly have "faith" must, by definition, but that faith above all else, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the damage they do. If "God" tells them that the faggots must be crushed, they'll go out and crush the faggots.

Do you really think it's a coindidence that homophobia and religion are so tightly linked? That anti-science sentiments are highest where religious belief is most prevalent?

I don't want to lock people up for talking about ontology with their kids or for pondering the meaning of life. But parents do not have the right to psychologically cripple their children nor instill them with reactionary self-destructive "values".

There is nothing wrong with raising children in an open-minded and pluralistic environment in which all sorts of philosophies and, yes, even spiritualities are discussed.

But raising them to reject reason? To "have faith" in "holy texts" and 2000 year old biggotries? I'm sorry, but that plainly crosses the line.

Presuming you are a communist, you rail away in support of an ideology that has shown time and time again that it fails, yet you have faith that it will one day work based on your own perception (fantasy) of how it could work.

There's an immense difference between advocating a political system, even an historically unsuccessful one; and having "faith".

Laissez-faire capitalists also adhere to a political ideology that's failed every time its been implemented. But that alone does not make their politics bankrupt. In my opinion, there are other facts which do and we could go into all the reasons that I think that communism is still viable and libertarianism is not ...but that's not what this thread is about.

The point is, though, I have arguments. So do libertarians. Religious people however, by the nature of "faith", do not. Not only that, but their belief system is predicated on not having evidence, on rejecting the entire rationalist paradigm of empirical and logical argumentation.

Again, it's "faith" itself that's the problem here, not any one particular manifestation of it.

Then what are you complaining about?

I'm not. Perhaps you forgot that you started this thread?

You asked how would religious education be handled. Whether or not religion is dying is irrelevent to that issue. Racism and sexism are also dying, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't confront them where they still exist.

uber-liberal

20th November 2006, 22:45

Children taught dogma are prevented from becoming functioning adults and often must endure decades strain before they can achieve the level of basic reasoning that healthy adults start out with.

And now this from wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

"... the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted."

Wow, so what you're spewing forth, your DOGMA, by your own statements, are dangerous to children and shouldn't be taught to anyone younger than, say, 16, because it can damage your adult life by giving the child a terribly narrow view of the world and impact their ability to judge correctly. So everyone in the world is screwed up, including you. Hence this silly argument.

LSD

20th November 2006, 22:58

Except, again, nothing I say is "not to be disputed or doubted".

And if I were to ever raise children, I would most certainly not require that they have "faith" in my ideas. On the contrary, I would encourage them to be as questioning and skeptical as possible.

Again, I'm not opposed to parents talking about their ideas with their kids; What I'm opposed to is them raising their children without a basic capacity for rationality.

I don't have a "dogma"; I have opinions and ideas, sure. But they change, they evolve, and they have reasons. Now I'll freely admit that some of those reasons may be wrong, perhaps even many of them. But the reasons nonetheless exist.

And if I were to talk about those ideas with my hypothetical children I would be able to argue my points without undermining basic rationality. Something which, by its very nature, "faith" is incapable of.

uber-liberal

20th November 2006, 23:13

First off, if you have a belief system shared by a large cross-section of society and is an established (usually implies a creator of it) philosophy, you have a dogma.
And even atheists have faith; they have faith that no -one/thing is tending the light at the end of the tunnell. Without having been their yourself you have no definitive proof your beliefs, indeed your "faith" is correct. Therefore you must believe in the absence of indisputable fact. THAT'S FAITH, in a nutshell.

And as for rationality, one man's rationale is another's lack of it. Truth, faith, all these things are subjective.
With all due respect, quit seeing the world in black & white. There's far more grey than you realize.

And if you have views that are wrong by your own opinion, than change them, damn the reasons. Wrong is wrong no ifs ands or buts.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

20th November 2006, 23:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 09:59 pm
Shouldn't people get to decide for themselves if they will be spiritual or follow a religion?

Should parents be allowed to teach their children religion and if not, what else are they not to teach their children and who are you to proclaim this?
Most people don't make the decision to follow a religion on their own. They learn it and it's forced on them by their parents/elders and sometimes by their communities. And then by the time they've come to an age where they could make the decision for themselves, this religion has already been ingrained into them. Their family and church all practice it and would put sanctions on them if they were to just quit their religion.

Why do you think America is 80% Christian and India is 80% Hindu? It's because the majority of those people were taught that the beliefs of their religions are facts when they were children. They didn't choose their religion. How many people spontaneously choose to start worshipping the ancient Greek gods? Zero, because no one coerces them to worship Zeus. Now, imagine that children weren't coerced to believe in ANY gods and angels. The only religious people would be insane or bored teenagers going through an attention-seeking phase. :lol:

LSD

20th November 2006, 23:24

First off, if you have a belief system shared by a large cross-section of society and is an established (usually implies a creator of it) philosophy, you have a dogma.

By your own definition, dogma must be "thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted".

I, however, have absolutely no problem with disputes or doubts related to my opinions. In fact I encourage them and would continue to do so where I to have children.

Obviously the same is not true for the "faithful".

"Faith", again, nescessitates blind obedience and discourages logic. It procludes rationality because, fundamentally, it is predicated on the rejection of logic and reasoning.

Look, rationality may be somewhat layered, but it's not undefinable and it's certainly not subjective. A rational position must rest on logical argumentation and/or substantial empirical substantiation. No religion, at pesent, can claim either. Therefore, religion is irrational.

Now, that's not in and of itself a bad thing; lots of things are irrational and people have every right to be as damn irrational as they want. But when they start raising children in an environment which glorifies that irrationality and, in so doing, discourages them from truly understanding the world around them, serious harm is done.

For the hopefully last time, this isn't about parents talking to their kids about "deep questions"; it's about them indoctrinating them with inflexible stultifying self-destructive dogma.

Parental rights (insofar as they even exist) are always secondary to the rights of their children. And whether it's racism, sexism, or religion; children have the right to be raised free of that crap.

And even atheists have faith; they have faith that no -one/thing is tending the light at the end of the tunnell.

That's not faith, it's logic.

If there is no evidence for something (like say an invisible rabbit living in your spleen), you must assume that it does not exist.

And if you have views that are wrong by your own opinion, than change them

I said I have opinions that may be wrong; obviously I don't consider them wrong myself or I wouldn't hold them.

My point was that I'm fallible and I know it and, therefore, if successfuly challenged, I will change my mind.

No, the world isn't "black and white", but that doesn't mean that we should allow any and all abused under the banner of relativism.

Daughters raised under conservative Islam are being abused. I don't care how "faithful" their parents think they're being, what they're doing is a crime. And to ignore that crime in the name of "religious freedom" is reflective a far more monochromatic worldview than mine.

I respect the right to a free conscience, I respect the right to free expression, I do not respect the "right" to abuse one's children. And while some religious education is pluralistic and rationally-leaning, a good deal of it is not. And that which isn't must be stopped so that the rights of the child are preserved.

"Wrong", you see, "is wrong, no ifs ands or buts"!

uber-liberal

21st November 2006, 00:22

By your own definition, dogma must be "thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted".

Not my definition, it is wikipedia's. That's why there were quotes around it, slick. It's an agreed upon definition, which your argument, and mine as well, fits into nicely.
We have centralized definitions for a reason; to communicate efficiently. When you speak in your own variant of English, you aren't speaking in a manner which anyone else can follow. This is Communications 101 shit, boss. WTF?

Look, rationality may be somewhat layered, but it's not undefinable and it's certainly not subjective. A rational position must rest on logical argumentation and/or substantial empirical substantiation. No religion, at pesent, can claim either. Therefore, religion is irrational.

All things whose rationale is supported by opinions, logical or otherwise, are subjective. Your rationalization to the destruction of religion AND ITS SUBSEQUENT BANNING is irrational from where I sit for these reasons;
A) It undermines people's ability to raise their children how they see fit, with no government oversight.
B) Essentially outlawing religion, for whatever reason you concoct, is limiting freedom for all. When you do that you limit yourself. You're onl;y truly free if it has no power over you, which obviously it does or you wouldn't get so worked up.
C) To argue one faith (the faith in nothing) over another (the faith in God) is a waste of time.

Parental rights (insofar as they even exist) are always secondary to the rights of their children.

Go out into the world, have a couple of kids, then come back with that argument. Not only is it naive but terribly destructive to the family dynamic. Parents are in charge for a reason; they have more wisdom. Putting that kind of power into the hands of the children within the family structure will reverse the power structure and lead to a completely adavistic situation. IT MAKES NO SENSE IN REALITY!

Daughters raised under conservative Islam are being abused. I don't care how "faithful" their parents think they're being, what they're doing is a crime.

I agree, but disallowing them to have their faith is just as much of a crime.

I respect the right to a free conscience, I respect the right to free expression, I do not respect the "right" to abuse one's children. And while some religious education is pluralistic and rationally-leaning, a good deal of it is not. And that which isn't must be stopped so that the rights of the child are preserved.

"Wrong", you see, "is wrong, no ifs ands or buts"!

All the more reason to completely secularize public education, not irradicate a parent's choice to raise their kids how they see fit. No one told your parents how to raise you, yet obviously they did so as they deemed appropriate. THEY HAD THAT FREEDOM, and that's how they could do so. YOU, sir, are a product of a free society and how parents can raise children without an overindulgence by the state.
Moreover is the fact that most atheists were raised within a faith, so your argument that religion supressesrationality and critical thinking is absurd.

And the Coup de Gras...

That's not faith, it's logic.

If there is no evidence for something (like say an invisible rabbit living in your spleen), you must assume that it does not exist.

The key word ther is "assume". Dont' assume anything, it's not logical OR rational. It's essentially guess work.
"Does God exist?"
"I guess not..."

Apathy and a lack of reasoning at its finest, folks...

LSD

21st November 2006, 01:30

Not my definition, it is wikipedia's. That's why there were quotes around it, slick. It's an agreed upon definition, which your argument, and mine as well, fits into nicely.

Excellent! So if we agree on that definition then we can lose this nonsense that holding opinions is the same thing as dogma.

So long as one is willing to entertain challenges to ones opinions, accepts that they may be wrong, and bases said opinions on logical argumentation, it's not a dogma.

Dogma requires rigididy and an unwillingness to accept challenge ("thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted"). That applies to "faith", but not to convictions in general.

Your rationalization to the destruction of religion AND ITS SUBSEQUENT BANNING is irrational from where I sit for these reasons;

First of all, I don't want to "ban" anything, least of all religion. I just want to ensure that children are raised safely and productively. And obviously being indoctrinated to believe that one is shameful and dirty and must cover oneself at all times is neither.

If someone wants to "turn to God", that's their business, but they must at least have the chance to consider the options available. And unless they were raised in a reasonbly rational environment, they won't be able to do that.

Obviously not all religious children become religious adults, but the vast majority do. The only reason that many atheists come out of religious households is that there are so many religious households.

Secular parents have a much higher chance of raising secular children than any religious group -- something which I'd think would be rather obvious.

But, again, this isn't about "wiping" out religion. It's about ensuring that subsequent generation are given every chance possible and afforded every protection nescessary.

Parents are guardians, they aren't owners. They're "rights" over the children in their care are limited and subject to the needs and interests of those children.

Just because you contributed 50% of the genetic material in a person does not give you ownership of their mind. Society may allow you to care for them, but they are an individual potentiary member of society and as such it is ultimately society's responsibility to ensure they are properly treated.

And whether it's racism, sexism, or dogmatic "faith", there are just certain things that children should not be taught to believe. Period.

A) It undermines people's ability to raise their children how they see fit, with no government oversight.

That ability is not and never has been absolute.

Guardians have always been limited in what they can and cannot do to those under their care. There is absolutely nothing new in restricting the kind of environment that they can construct.

Look, again, this isn't about ending all religious discussion, it's about stopping indoctrination and brainwashing. It's about allowing children to grow up openminded so that they have the freedom to make their own decisions on matters of belief and opinion.

In this case, a parent's "right" to raise his child has he sees fit clashes with that child's right to be raised free of coercion and abuse.

That doesn't mean that the government should step in, again, I don't support state action on this issue except in the most extreme of cases. But in postrevolutionary society where children would be raised more communaly anyway, it would be very easy to prevent parental indoctrination without involving any violent force whatsoever.

Putting that kind of power into the hands of the children within the family structure will reverse the power structure and lead to a completely adavistic situation.

Relax. No one's talking about "putting kids in charge". This isn't about power, it's about interests and who's should come first.

Parents' "rights' over their children are tenuous at best. Just because they're genetically related to them does not automatically grant them authority. Developing children are obviously incapable of caring for themselves, but there's no reason that it has to be the parents who look after them.

The "nuclear family" is a decidely reactionary institution.

And that said, even within the context of parental freedoms, there are always limitations. Again, children are removed from cults all the time, despite the fact that, to the parents at least, it's a matter of faith

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the difference is between the man who forced his daughter to wear a garbage bag and the man who forces her to wear a Burqa.

More importantly, I'm waiting for someone to justify how the latter can be considered acceptable while the former is rightfully recognized as abuse.

I agree, but disallowing them to have their faith is just as much of a crime.

How on earth do you figure that?

"Faith" is opinion, subjugation is fact. No one's beliefs, religious or otherwise, can override the right to dignity and security of person.

If my "faith" required that I beat my childern ("spare the rod" and all that), would you accept that as legitimate? Would stopping me be "as much of a crime" as what I did to my kids?

How about if my "faith" required that I just psychologically abuse them, you know, teach them that they're shit, that they're worthless, that they have no purpose in life but to serve men and make babies... oh wait, that's my "right". <_<

The key word ther is "assume". Dont' assume anything, it's not logical OR rational. It's essentially guess work.

Assumptions are a fundamental and indispensible part of logical enquiry. I would advise that you read this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361) as the issues are rather complex and I can't possibly repeat the entire argument here.

A brief exerpt might suffice, however, to summarize the relevent issues.

***

Science, and logic, is predicated on the tacit rejection of those ideas for which we have no knowledge. We must assume that those things which we do not know of do not exist. Otherwise, we would be unable to make any theoretical models, since it would constantly be problematic that all those unknown facts were ...unknown.

The only reason that we can make empirical determinations is because we, albeit implicitly, reject all those concepts that we do not know. You would say that one can merely "not consider" these ideas, and need not assert that things we do not know are true or false. Unfortunately, that non-consideration is itself the very assertion that you seek to avoid. The "non consideration" of unknown ideas is the rejection of those ideas.

The assumption of the nonexistance of the unknown is one of the key axiomatic rules of science. But remember, we're talking about the unknown, not the unproven, and we're talking about concepts. That means that the concept of Klingons living on the moon is not unknown to you, because I just made you aware of it. Untill I did, however, you axiomatically assumed the falsehood of that concept.

You did this pattern-generally, that is you did not specifically reject this theory, you just process assumed the falsehood of it along with everything else of which you had no knowledge. Now that I have introduced the concept, however, you cannot reject it out of hand. You must consider any evidence that supports it, any evidence that opposes it and render a determination.

That determination can be only one of two things. That there is evidence to support it and that, accordingly, you now accept it as true, or that there is not evidence to support it and therefore you do not accept it as true. if you decide upon the latter, as I hope you do, you will return that particular theory to its former status of assumed untruthfulness. You will assume it to be false, even though, again, this is part of a process pattern, not a specific rejection (that already happened).

You cannot not believe that God does not exist without believing that God does exist. In binary situations, we are definitionaly restricted to two choices. If you choose to reject a positive proposition then you are logically forced to accept that the proposition is false. It cannot be simultaneously not true and not false. If it is true then it is true, with all the implications thereof, but if it is false then it is false, which means that it is wrong. In the case of God exists, falsity means that the statement is wrong. God does NOT exist. Again, basic logical nescessity.

There is simply no room in logic, or science for that matter, for the unknown or the unrational. That which we have no reason to believe exist must be assumed to not exist until evidence is presented to the contrary.

Because you must choose, you must choose disbelief. Non non disbelief, is simply not an option.

Let's look at this hypothetically. Suppose that you are a rational actor presented with two opposing propositions, A and B. A contends that object X exists, B contends that it does not.

You have never heard, thought, considered, or imagined X nor its existance and so therefore have no preconceptions or oppinions regarding the existance or nonexistance of X.

Now, neither A nor B can prove their propositions. B cannot do so because it is a negative conjecture and negative conjectures are notoriously impossible to prove. A also cannot prove its case because, for our hypothetical example, its proponents simply cannot find any supporting evidence.

Now, under your paradigm, you would look at both propositions equally, analyze them, and finding both of them to be lacking evidence, you will disreagd them both. You will "pay no attention or heed" to either of them.

Now what does this mean?

In terms of theory B, it really has no effect. B is proposing the nonexistance of an object that you previously did not believe to exist. Therefore your acceptance of this theory would have no effect, likewise your disregarding of it has no effect. In terms of A, however, its acceptance would matter. It proposes that X does exist, which you did not previously believe. Its disregarding, therefore, matters.

By disregarding A you are, effectively, attempting to return to the status quo. That is, you've found both theories to be flawed and so do not want a part of either. The problem, of course, is that you cannot forget that you heard the theories, especially A, since B is, ultimately, just its counterpart.

Your inability to forget, therefore, changes the entire dynamic.

Your disregarding of B, again, has no practical effect. But your disregarding of A means that you have been made aware of the theory of the existance of X and have chosen to not accept it. You have considered the theory and have, instead, chosen to return to your original position which is, now, indistinguishable from B.

Before being introduced to A and B, your thinking, actions, ideas were all, when it was relevent, predicated on the nonexistance of X, since you had never heard of it. Likewise they were, and still are, predicated on the nonexistance of theoretical object Y which you have never heard of.

You have now head of X but choose to revert to the prior status quo in which your thinking, actions, and ideas are predicated on the nonexistance of X. This is precisely what B proposes.

Ultimately, you have rejected both A and B because they cannot prove themselves, but you cannot prove that A or B are false. You are, as established, adopting the essential features of B however, and, more importantly, are disregarding the positive proposition of A. You are accepting your original mindset, as discussed above, even though you have no proof that your original mindset was corrrect. You are, therefore, accepting your original position without proof.

You are saying that, because of lack of evidence, you are going to disregard the existance of X and, in every important way, return to your original mindset in which X does not exist.

You are accepting without proof a mindset and theoretical framework predicated on the nonexistance of X.

"Accepting without proof"

as•sump•tion (…-s¾mp“sh…n) n. 1. The act of taking to or upon oneself. 2. The act of taking over. 3. The act of taking for granted. 4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition. 5. Presumption; arrogance. 6. Logic. A minor premise. 7. Assumption.a. Theology. The bodily taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven after her death. b. A Christian feast celebrating this event. c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

Disregarding a positive conjecture is indistinguishable from assuming its counterpart.

***

Seriously, read this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361). Not only is it an interesting topic, but it quit neatly outlines the fallacy of equating atheism with "faith"

ichneumon

21st November 2006, 01:56

You cannot not believe that God does not exist without believing that God does exist. In binary situations, we are definitionaly restricted to two choices. If you choose to reject a positive proposition then you are logically forced to accept that the proposition is false. It cannot be simultaneously not true and not false. If it is true then it is true, with all the implications thereof, but if it is false then it is false, which means that it is wrong. In the case of God exists, falsity means that the statement is wrong. God does NOT exist. Again, basic logical nescessity.

There is simply no room in logic, or science for that matter, for the unknown or the unrational. That which we have no reason to believe exist must be assumed to not exist until evidence is presented to the contrary.

has it occured to you at all that the universe might be irrational or unknowable - that your merely human brain, and the science it invents, may not be able to emcompass reality-as-it-is?

furthermore, how is quantum reality binary? i also know quiet a few rather irrational scientists, who have some odd beliefs. there is more than one logic, you know - and all of them are equally valid. for that matter, buddhist logic, which requires the same experimental proof and rational validity as 19thC western logic, includes "unknowable" as a valid logical state.

"believe nothing,
no matter where you read it,
no matter who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it stands with your own reason"
-buddha

so what? christians don't accept your espitemology and never will. they have their own logic - divine revelation. i would agree that Revealed Knowledge is of little practical use, but i can't dispute it's internal validity. that wouldn't be logical.

:D

LSD

21st November 2006, 02:07

has it occured to you at all that the universe might be irrational or unknowable

No.

But even if it were, that wouldn't change how we deal with it in the immediate. Again, pattern assumptions can be wrong, but they're unavoidable.

There's simply no way to genuinely "disregards" a concept without implicitly assuming it to be false.

And even if proof never comes or, as you suggest can never come, we still must assume that "God" does not exist, again, just like we do for every other unknown/unsupportable conceptual claim.

furthermore, how is quantum reality binary?

It isn't, but issues of conceptual existance, even related to quantum theory, nonetheless are.

The phenomenon of quantum enganglement, for example, either exists or it does not. It cannot not exist and not not exist.

i also know quiet a few rather irrational scientists, who have some odd beliefs.

I don't doubt it, but that's wholly irrelevent to the subject at hand. Regardless of whatever "odd" opinions they may hold, if they're at all decent scientists then when they're doing science, they're rational about it.

And when they're not, I couldn't care less what they do.

Again, people's beliefs are not my business. What they do to others in the name of those beliefs, however, is.

so what? christians don't accept your espitemology and never will. they have their own logic - divine revelation.logical.

"Divine revalation" is not a form of logic. It's a form of belief, sure, but since it requires by its nature the suspension of foundational logical principles of argument and evaluation, it cannot be considered "logical" in any reasonbly sense of the word.

i would agree that Revealed Knowledge is of little practical use

More than that, it's of demonstrable practical harm.

uber-liberal

25th November 2006, 12:38

You know, I had a reply up, but it got erased. Hmm, censorship of "radical" opinions diametrically opposed to your own. What political party did that, I wonder?

Basically I said:

Don't raise kids.
DON'T FUCK WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS OR THE PARENTS WILL TEAR YOU A NEW ONE!!! This isn't a threat; it's more of a warning.
Everyone has a dogma. Learn to like it.
Disallowing faith is disallowing the heart to speak freely.
Parents are in charge for a reason. Limiting them in how they can raise their own kids is a recipe for armed revolt against the ones in "authority".
Brainwashing is believing any argument without even considering that the antithesis might be true.
You can vote for candidates A or B, but I choose C, none of the above. God isn't proven OR disproven to exist. Therefore, the status quo is Maybe. Quit complicating it.
ATHEISM IS FAITH BECAUSE YOU ARE ACCEPTING UNPROVEN FACTS AS TRUTH!!!! Isn't your definition of faith "an opinion not based on facts"? Isn't that the same as "Accepting without proof"?

RevMARKSman

27th November 2006, 20:14

Hmm, censorship of "radical" opinions diametrically opposed to your own. What political party did that, I wonder?

FYI, I had a post deleted too when the FUCKING SITE WENT DOWN.

I REPEAT: THE SITE WENT DOWN. YOU WERE NOT "CENSORED."

OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS

People as property. Gotta love it.
Redstar had a great essay on that, but I won't waste my time linking directly to it because I know you won't read it: http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php

Disallowing faith is disallowing the heart to speak freely.
Before today I had always thought the brain controlled the muscles used for speaking...but your amazing powers of soul-lifting and spiritual healing have completely reversed my position.

Parents are in charge for a reason.

Yeah. Because they're bigger than their kids, because small children will emulate parents, because small children are very impressionable.

Limiting them in how they can raise their own kids

So a kid running away from his abusive parents' house is "limiting them in how they can raise their own kids"? Jeez, let's just take away all limits right now. Spankings, indoctrination and adulation--here we come!

God isn't proven OR disproven to exist.

O RLY?
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...r_nonexistence/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/ontological_argument_for_nonexistence/)

Therefore, the status quo is Maybe. Quit complicating it.

No. The status quo is No. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? That's why invisible pink unicorns, goblins, ghosts, souls, monsters under the bed, fairy godmothers, and the Loch Ness Monster don't exist. This is not a "Maybe." This is a "NO, this shit was made up, and there's no evidence for it, so we must assume it does not exist."

ATHEISM IS FAITH BECAUSE YOU ARE ACCEPTING UNPROVEN FACTS AS TRUTH!!!!

ITS NOT UNPROVEN LOLOLOLOLLOLOOOOLOLOMGZORZ NOOBDUMBSHIT!11~!11one!11eins!!!e^((pi)*i)+2!!!11

I used more exclamation points than you did, therefore my point is more valid...bwahahahahah.

uber-liberal

27th November 2006, 21:37

People as property. Gotta love it.

I...never said people were property. Where did you get that? Simply using the title as it was ment to be used. Your mom is exactly that: YOUR MOM. Your kids are exactly that: YOUR KIDS. You don't own them but they do come from you, ergo yours.
The problem here is symantical in nature. The whole hear what you want not what they say routine. Happens a lot.
No kids aren't property, but they do belong to a family unit. Families protect their own more often than not. There are the unfortunate times when it is in the child's interest to be removed from an abusive situation, like my step-daughter was. Her dad threw her into a door because she put a colored sock in the whites. Should have seen it coming considering he's a racist, mysogynist prick.

And as far as a parenting opinion goes, you're following the advise of Redstar, who said himself "I've had very little contact with small children...".

His opinions aren't completely misinformed. Kids are VERY expensive. I have three here. They aren't, however, unaffordable. And besides, the argument could be easily made that, if communists aren't reproducing along conventional means and capitalists are breeding like rabbits, then won't the communist philosophy stay at relatively the same numbers? You have no chilren to teach, so how is the message going to go forth? Just a thought...
And the abuse stemming from your financial situation is not quite on the mark, either. While the stress involved of having to live paycheck to paycheck is a big burden and does contribute to people yelling at and/or beating their kids, usually it's the guilt of not making enough to support your kids, or the drinking/drugs used to escape the situation only to exasserbate (sp?) it is the key factor.
He also goes on to draw the line on parenting: either you raise kids this way or you are trying to own your kids. I can say from experience that one technique for raising kids isn't the sure-fire method. Like I said, I have three kids, yet I also have three different techniques for raising them. Each responds to stimuli differently. The beauty of individuality, as it were. I'm not stomping that out, I encourage it as often as I can. But kids are inherently both selfish and empathetic. All they know is that they want, but they feel WITH you. It's very symbiotic the first few years. Many a parent has difficulty letting those kids go, but try understanding their situation. These kids have been dependent on them, so to go from dependency to independence in a matter of 15 years is hard on parents. We want our kids to have a better life than us, but we still like to feel needed or even wanted by our kids. It tells us that they love us.

Yeah. Because they're bigger than their kids, because small children will emulate parents, because small children are very impressionable.
And because parents know more about the world than kids. It's up to parents to pass on their wisdom to their kids, not someone else's. If you want toraise kids all the same you'll get a bunch of robots, all programmed to think, act, feel the same.
I can't help but see Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" flash through my mind. If I'm reading your theory right, it's trying to put everything in the communist box, just like capitalists do only with different dogma and different rules. If this is your idea of an ideal society, go for it. I couldn't disagree more.

God isn't proven OR disproven to exist.

O RLY?
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...r_nonexistence/

A terribly biased source. However, I don't think you'll find an unbiased one out there. Not that I'm an advocte for the crap being paraded about by creationists, but if they want to live in ignorance who am I to stop them? It's their lives.
I will, however, try and stop creationism from being taught in schools. That's pseudo-science and has no business in a place or education. If parents want their kids to know about it, that's why there's Sunday School.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Yes, and I still find it to be far-fetched in regards to religion and the disproof of diety. Logically it makes sense, but you forget the human heart. Thoughts are logical, emotions aren't. Feelings are neither right nor wrong, they just are. This happened with Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, all of it... the lack of the Human Factor.
If you prove that god doesn't exist to someone who "feels" that s/he does, you'd be right to call them crazy in my opinion, but you won't win them over. Try to force it and you'll be REALLY fucked. Have you ever heard of the Sword of Damoclese?

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

RevMARKSman

28th November 2006, 00:02

but they do belong to a family unit.

What if they don't want to, and there is no reason to keep them from leaving?

And because parents know more about the world than kids.
So do the rest of the adults in the world. Why can't they intervene to raise kids too?

If you want toraise kids all the same

They're all rational so they must ALL BE THE SAME!

A terribly biased source.

Then what ISN'T?

Come on. I want to see your definition of "biased" that includes logic.

but you forget the human heart.

You mean emotions?
Emotions are all fine and dandy, I have a hell of a lot of them myself. Imagination is the same way. BUT neither of these things have any effect on truths about what is and what isn't. I may feel that God exists, but when the chips are down, the fact remains that he/she/it simply is not. I imagine a lot every day, daydreaming about the perfect world in my mind. But I never make the mistake of confusing this utopian world with reality--and if I did, I'd be dead wrong, all relativism aside.

Feelings are neither right nor wrong, they just are.

Feelings such as happiness, sadness, etc. fit your description. But emotional positions about whether certain facts are true can be right or wrong. In the case of "God," they are as far from right as you can possibly get.

If you prove that god doesn't exist to someone who "feels" that s/he does, you'd be right to call them crazy in my opinion, but you won't win them over.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I once "felt" that God existed, but with a lot of help from redstar2000 (pbuh) and Sentinel...well, good things happened. However, in special cases where the person is just too stuck in psychosis to come back, they shouldn't be teaching their little fantasy to kids who are impressionable and, like the parents, IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE, where "feelings" don't make things true.

uber-liberal

28th November 2006, 12:13

Okay,

What if they don't want to, and there is no reason to keep them from leaving?

If they are an adult, go for it. If the situation is abusive, blow the whistle. Kids do have rights to protect themselves, but I've seen WAAAAY too many teenagers screaming about parental abuse because they had to do chores or got a harsh punishment to give this... crap, quite frankly. A parent spanking their children as a form of punishment isn’t abuse. Hitting them with a belt is, for sure. Bruising your kids, calling them names, berating them, all are forms of abuse. But swatting your kid's ass for continuously disobeying you, or soap (non-toxic, of course) in the mouth for bad language (probably learned from me anyway, so I tend to not use this one) aren't.
Discipline is essential to raising a thoughtful, respectful and self-sufficient person. Anyone who knows two shits about parenting can tell you that.

So do the rest of the adults in the world. Why can't they intervene to raise kids too?

They do. Teachers, counselors, neighbors, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, acquaintances... all help each child develop their view of the world. But the primary responsibility of filtering out the bad influences from the good ones is the parents. The mother carried that child for 9 months not just to be an incubator. The father stuck around to be in that child's life. If he didn't, that's his loss and, unfortunately, the child's loss, too.
Physically procreating doesn't give you the right to have kids, no. But it does give you the option to step up and be an adult. If you can hang, cool. If you can't, put the child up for adoption before it goes to foster care. Let someone who wants a child raise them instead of someone who can't, for whatever reasons, or someone just interested in a government check.

They're all rational so they must ALL BE THE SAME!

So all people are the same... Tell me; are you and your siblings the exact same personality-wise? How about your cousins, your best friends, or your profs/co-workers? Does everyone eat dinner at precisely 6:15 in your world? Is it fish stick Friday or meatloaf Monday that everyone complains about?
Does everyone have green eyes there? What about hair color... does anyone dare to be an individual and (gasp) DYE their hair?
Does your neighbor think the same thoughts as you at the same time?
And kids aren't rational. That's why they're someone's responsibility.

Books for your perusal: "Fahrenheit 451", by Ray Bradbury, "Welcome to the Monkey House", a collection of short stories by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., "Ham on Rye" and "What matters most is how well you walk through the fire...", By Charles Bukowski, and "The Prophet", by Kahlil Gibran.

Then what ISN'T?

Exactly.

You mean emotions?
Emotions are all fine and dandy; I have a hell of a lot of them myself. Imagination is the same way. BUT neither of these things have any effect on truths about what is and what isn't.

Than why are we having this debate?

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I once "felt" that God existed, but with a lot of help from redstar2000 (pbuh) and Sentinel...well, good things happened. However, in special cases where the person is just too stuck in psychosis to come back, they shouldn't be teaching their little fantasy to kids who are impressionable and, like the parents, IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE, where "feelings" don't make things true.

You started believing in atheism because you wanted to. Ultimately you have to make a choice for yourself, just like everyone else in the world. If someone else makes a choice for their life that you don't like, well, tough shit. You're running afoul of the same old trick Christianity has used, which is either you're with us or against us. Try some compassion; you've walked in their shoes. Let them know it.
Feelings make things true to the individual because it "fleshes out" the experience for the psyche. People tend to lean away from the cold and unfeeling and gravitate toward things that make them feel reassured or useful. They also steer clear of "bad" feelings, like fear, and respond positively toward "good" feelings, like happiness and compassion. Anger is the direct result of fear or frustration. Understanding and acceptance are the result of compassion.
When you tell someone their whole universe is a lie, they get scared and take it out like anger on whoever said such things to scare them. If you work with them to see the world as you see it, using compassion and sympathy as emotional tools, they still may not agree, but the odds that they will actually listen go up dramatically, and that helps get your message out.

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 14:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 12:02 am
I wouldn't be too sure about that. I once "felt" that God existed, but with a lot of help from redstar2000 (pbuh) and Sentinel...well, good things happened.
As Uber-Liberal said, you made a choice about which explanation of the world made most sense to you no differently than a religious person makes the same choice.

Logic and common sense play a part, but unfortunately for humanity we humans use our logical faculties differently from one another and so will often come to wildly different conclusions using the same information. Unfortunately unlike math, we cannot conclusively or accurately determine that any one of us is correct.

The real crux of the problem is that people are arrogant, like you. Once we come to a conclusion, we're convinced we're right. Worse, we're convinced that everyone else is wrong. Worst of all, as in the case of people like you, LSD, most other people here, and most religious zealots, we think everyone else needs the guiding hand of ingenuous enlightenment to see the error of their ways. That's when people like you and religious fundamentalists (and you're all genetically related in your need to control) start to push policies and advocate social norms that have no room for differing opinions. I guess the only difference between you and zealots is that at least zealots tacitly admit they're intolerant of dissent.

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men, I'd rather people like you simply said "thank you" when someone expresses their religious opinion and went on your merry way instead of getting your panties in a wad over things you wish you could control but cannot.

RevMARKSman

28th November 2006, 16:54

So all people are the same... Tell me; are you and your siblings the exact same personality-wise? How about your cousins, your best friends, or your profs/co-workers? Does everyone eat dinner at precisely 6:15 in your world? Is it fish stick Friday or meatloaf Monday that everyone complains about?
Does everyone have green eyes there? What about hair color... does anyone dare to be an individual and (gasp) DYE their hair?
Does your neighbor think the same thoughts as you at the same time?
And kids aren't rational. That's why they're someone's responsibility

I was being sarcastic. No time to reply to the post now, I'm at school.

uber-liberal

29th November 2006, 00:33

I was being sarcastic. No time to reply to the post now, I'm at school.

School. Enough said.
Just a thought... sarcasm often does not translate in text, since it's usually only recognized by inflection. Let's avoid what may be obvious to the author but convaluted to the reader, 'mkay?

RevMARKSman

29th November 2006, 01:52

The real crux of the problem is that people are arrogant, like you. Once we come to a conclusion, we're convinced we're right. Worse, we're convinced that everyone else is wrong. Worst of all, as in the case of people like you, LSD, most other people here, and most religious zealots, we think everyone else needs the guiding hand of ingenuous enlightenment to see the error of their ways.

I'd like to respond with one of my favorite quotes:

1. Be willing to back up your statements with facts - or at least some pretty sound reasoning.

2. Don't expect them to respect you or your viewpoints just because you say so. INTJ respect must be earned.

3. Be willing to concede when you are wrong. The average INTJ respects the truth over being "right". Withdraw your erroneous comment and admit your mistake and they will see you as a very reasonable person. Stick to erroneous comments and they will think you are an irrational idiot and treat everything you say as being questionable.

4. Try not to be repetitive. It annoys them.

5. Do not feed them a line of bull.

6. Expect debate. INTJs like to tear ideas apart and prove their worthiness. They will even argue a point they don't actually support for the sake of argument.

7. Do not mistake the strength of your conviction with the strength of your argument. INTJs do not need to believe in a position to argue it or argue it well. Therefore, it will take more than fervor to sway them.

8. Do not be surprised at sarcasm.

9. Remember that INTJs believe in workable solutions. They are extremely open-minded to possibilities, but they will quickly discard any idea that is unfeasible. INTJ open-mindedness means that they are willing to have a go at an idea by trying to pull it apart. This horrifies people who expect oohs and ahhs and reverence. The ultimate INTJ insult to an idea is to ignore it, because that means it's not even interesting enough to deconstruct.

This also means that they will not just accept any viewpoint that is presented to them. The bottom line is "Does it work?" - end discussion.

10. Do not expect INTJs to actually care about how you view them. They already know that they are arrogant bastards with a morbid sense of humor. Telling them the obvious accomplishes nothing.

I know I'm "arrogant." Somehow, I don't care--because I'm right.

(and you're all genetically related in your need to control)
I can see it now: "How Far Do You Go? See where the closest fundie in your family tree is!" :lol:

have no room for differing opinions.

...

quote:
...surely freedom of speech--which implies freedom of belief--is a crucial part of any democratic system?

No, there is no such thing as an "absolute" freedom of speech--although we always have freedom of belief...there's no way to get inside someone's head and run a "belief-check".

Every human society rigorously controls or prohibits certain kinds of speech...and communism will be no different.

Racist speech will be prohibited. Misogynist speech will be prohibited. Pro-capitalist speech is in for a rough time...it might be marginally permitted and might not.

I advocate that the public expression of superstitious belief be prohibited.

That doesn't mean, by the way, that we have to shoot people or put them in prison...there are many less drastic ways of demonstrating social disapproval. Every street preacher deserves and should receive a punch in the mouth, for example.

But you have to make it clear what you will tolerate and what you will not tolerate...and I don't think we should tolerate superstition at all.

taken from http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083172071&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

I guess the only difference between you and zealots is that at least zealots tacitly admit they're intolerant of dissent.
You don't like reality? Tough shit.
But don't for a moment start telling people that a fantasy world YOU MADE UP is a part of it, because they will get seriously pissed. And don't try to tell kids that your fantasy exists, either.

At least capitalists admit they're different from us only in what they want. Godsuckers are different in what they have "FAITH" is real--which just happens to NOT BE REAL.

I'd rather people like you simply said "thank you" when someone expresses their religious opinion

...

People will be equal, not opinions. Some opinions are correct, some are incorrect.

Incorrect opinion: some "races" are superior to others.

Correct opinion: "race" is not a meaningful concept in biological science.

Incorrect opinion: men are "intellectually superior" to women.

Correct opinion: there is no meaningful distinction that has been demonstrated to exist between the intellectual capabilities of men and women.

Incorrect opinion: there is a supernatural "higher power" that takes in interest in humanity.

Correct opinion: there are no supernatural entities of any kind.

You certainly have a "right" to hold an incorrect opinion...indeed, no one can stop you. No one can get inside your head and straighten out your "thinking" (too bad in your case).

But if you act on an incorrect opinion or possibly even communicate it, you are likely to find yourself in some serious trouble.

And not just with me.

taken from http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083244046&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

School. Enough said.

Yes, because I'm still learning things, I must be an ignorant wanker who knows nothing about "spirituality", "religion", "freedom of speech" and how they all relate to crap. :rolleyes:

^note the smiley for easy recognition of sarcasm

uber-liberal

29th November 2006, 04:10

Yes, because I'm still learning things, I must be an ignorant wanker who knows nothing about "spirituality", "religion", "freedom of speech" and how they all relate to crap.

No, just ignorant of how it relates to the real world. School is such an insolar institution, unless you are actively paying and working for your education, your view gets so out of whack you forget the difference between the theory and how they work in practice. You want to changew the world, go for it. BE PRACTICAL, not dreamy-eyed and ignorant of how things actually work.

You don't like reality? Tough shit.
But don't for a moment start telling people that a fantasy world YOU MADE UP is a part of it, because they will get seriously pissed. And don't try to tell kids that your fantasy exists, either.

Who's "fantasy" are we teaching here, yours or theirs?
If you don't like the reality that parents can teach their kids their beliefs, tough shit. If someone trying to impart values to their kids, even if they are attached to religious dogma, makes you angry, tough shit.
Perhaps YOU should stop telling people that their "fantasy" is offensive to you. Maybe then you'll see people actually treat you like a decent human being.
And don't try telling people how to raise their kids when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. When you have children and have raised them into respectful human beings, then I'll listen to your opinions on parenting. Until then you're just being a silly little shit, stuck in your own arrogant obstinance. It would probably be a good idea to stop collecting parenting advice from people without kids, too.
My good friend J____ is a program director of early childhood care for a public school system. She has a degree in early childhood development and is single with no kids. She has watched our kids, is excellent with them and genuinely loves our kids. But, unlike you, she doesn't presume to know what raising kids is truly like or what is best for them, having none of her own. She's not a religious or spiritual person. But she respects others' rights to raise their kids as they see fit. That's how tradition is passed on. That's how family lineage is passed on. She respects her parents enough to realize the same behavior in others and respect their actions and rights.

I think you're a little too prone to painting with the broad brush, MonicaTTmed. Instead of generalizing ALL religious people as zealots, how about trying to just weed out the zealots? Perhaps hating something only makes you seem like you're full of hate, instead of being full of joy.
Isn't one of the biggest arguments for atheism that religions are hateful institutions? Why be the same with different dogma? If you want to sell people an alternative, GIVE THEM A REAL ALTERNATIVE, not just another pretty ride or a hateful screed of how they live in la-la land.

RevMARKSman

29th November 2006, 12:15

Who's "fantasy" are we teaching here, yours or theirs?
If you don't like the reality that parents can teach their kids their beliefs, tough shit. If someone trying to impart values to their kids, even if they are attached to religious dogma, makes you angry, tough shit.

Yeah, that's reality. You've left out that I intend to change reality.

Perhaps YOU should stop telling people that their "fantasy" is offensive to you. Maybe then you'll see people actually treat you like a decent human being.
And don't try telling people how to raise their kids when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. When you have children and have raised them into respectful human beings, then I'll listen to your opinions on parenting. Until then you're just being a silly little shit, stuck in your own arrogant obstinance. It would probably be a good idea to stop collecting parenting advice from people without kids, too.

"Decent human being"? Define "decent." Again, I don't give a shit about what people think of me when I'm right.

Yes, I do know what the hell I'm talking about. I know that just staying on the Internet finding things out for myself has been a lot more beneficial to my knowledge base than being raised Catholic and told to "get off the computer!"

Tell me again why kids need to grow into "respectful" people. Why should we automatically give respect to anything just for existing? My respect has to be EARNED.

Ooh, the "arrogant" thing again. I guess I'll just bow under your amazingly logical, non-ad-hominem arguments. :rolleyes: <again note smiley

I think you're a little too prone to painting with the broad brush, MonicaTTmed. Instead of generalizing ALL religious people as zealots, how about trying to just weed out the zealots? Perhaps hating something only makes you seem like you're full of hate, instead of being full of joy.
Isn't one of the biggest arguments for atheism that religions are hateful institutions? Why be the same with different dogma? If you want to sell people an alternative, GIVE THEM A REAL ALTERNATIVE, not just another pretty ride or a hateful screed of how they live in la-la land.

Why should I be full of joy? This world isn't exactly happy-happy-joy-joy.

And no, the whole "hate" thing isn't an argument for atheism. We don't do moralistic bullshit, sorry.

Reality: "God" as a supernatural entity doesn't exist.
Go ahead, try to change it. I'd love to see this. :o

uber-liberal

29th November 2006, 20:26

You just don't get it. Try being nice to people for a change instead of your normal shitty self.

RevMARKSman

29th November 2006, 20:47

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 29, 2006 03:26 pm
You just don't get it. Try being nice to people for a change instead of your normal shitty self.
The dying cry of an overinflated argument.

Well, at least you don't bullshit yourself by acting like you still have an argument.

manic expression

29th November 2006, 21:48

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 28, 2006 02:50 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 28, 2006 02:50 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2006 12:02 am
I wouldn't be too sure about that. I once "felt" that God existed, but with a lot of help from redstar2000 (pbuh) and Sentinel...well, good things happened.
As Uber-Liberal said, you made a choice about which explanation of the world made most sense to you no differently than a religious person makes the same choice.

Logic and common sense play a part, but unfortunately for humanity we humans use our logical faculties differently from one another and so will often come to wildly different conclusions using the same information. Unfortunately unlike math, we cannot conclusively or accurately determine that any one of us is correct.

The real crux of the problem is that people are arrogant, like you. Once we come to a conclusion, we're convinced we're right. Worse, we're convinced that everyone else is wrong. Worst of all, as in the case of people like you, LSD, most other people here, and most religious zealots, we think everyone else needs the guiding hand of ingenuous enlightenment to see the error of their ways. That's when people like you and religious fundamentalists (and you're all genetically related in your need to control) start to push policies and advocate social norms that have no room for differing opinions. I guess the only difference between you and zealots is that at least zealots tacitly admit they're intolerant of dissent.

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men, I'd rather people like you simply said "thank you" when someone expresses their religious opinion and went on your merry way instead of getting your panties in a wad over things you wish you could control but cannot.[/b]
A few points.

That doesn't mean we can make the public sphere secular. It is a proven fact that leaving religion to private life is far better for everyone. The argument many on here have is that religion should be the business of the religious person and that is all.

Oh, and by the way, the Abrahamic faiths are wholly in defiance of "logic and common sense". Read the Bible, it constantly and consistently states that faith, not logic and not reason, but faith only, is important. Christianity shuns such things in favor of blind belief. So no, it is not just a matter of a different path of logic and reason in this instance.

Again, those people can have their conclusions and eat them, too. However, they must restrict those conclusions and practices to their privacy.

The person you are responding to feels that religion is misled. Is s/he supposed to NOT express this conclusion? Of course not, s/he is perfectly reasonable in voicing their objection to religion (whereas you are unreasonable in your objections). Where's your respect for different opinions now? Oh, that's right, it was always just a figment of your delusion.

Lastly, if someone wishes NOT to hear someone's religious beliefs, that is a justified wish and it should be honored. Therefore, people who do "express their religious opinion", regardless of what others want, are being quite callous to those aforementioned wishes. In the bigger picture, society should recognize that the question of religion is one that must be pursued and answered in private, for it is a personal question.

t_wolves_fan

29th November 2006, 22:21

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 29, 2006 09:48 pm

A few points.

That doesn't mean we can make the public sphere secular. It is a proven fact that leaving religion to private life is far better for everyone. The argument many on here have is that religion should be the business of the religious person and that is all.

By denying the ability/right to express one's faith or opinion of faith in public, right?

Direct yes/no question.

Oh, and by the way, the Abrahamic faiths are wholly in defiance of "logic and common sense". Read the Bible, it constantly and consistently states that faith, not logic and not reason, but faith only, is important. Christianity shuns such things in favor of blind belief. So no, it is not just a matter of a different path of logic and reason in this instance.

I partially agree with your assessment of the bible.

However, it may be logical to one person to believe in that message whereas it is not to you.

Again, those people can have their conclusions and eat them, too. However, they must restrict those conclusions and practices to their privacy.

So the state/society should control what opinions they voice in public, correct?

If yes, is that freedom?

The person you are responding to feels that religion is misled. Is s/he supposed to NOT express this conclusion? Of course not, s/he is perfectly reasonable in voicing their objection to religion

Agreed.

(whereas you are unreasonable in your objections).

I disagree, they are wholly reasonable. My rejection is based on the fact, which neither of you can refute, that rationality and logic are not perfectly objective among people outside of pure mathematics.

God's existence and wrath are a risk. You have to judge the probability that you'll encounter that risk, don't you? To you it's zero percent. To another person it's 100 percent. If a person perceives a probability of 100% that he'll risk the wrath of God by misbehaving, then it is entirely rational to follow that God's rules, isn't it?

This is pascal's wager in action. You don't think he's there...but you don't know do you?

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack of existence, is it? Did the sun really revolve around the earth when people thought it did?

You don't know 100%...

You might burn in hell for eternity...

Take the bet or no? There's quite a literature on risk-taking, you should check into it sometime.

Where's your respect for different opinions now? Oh, that's right, it was always just a figment of your delusion.

One of us says differing opinions should not be expressed in public.

One of us has simply disagreed with an opinion but as yet has not stated any belief that his opinion should be restricted in any way, shape or form.

You make for me an honest assessment of who has respect for differing opinions.

Lastly, if someone wishes NOT to hear someone's religious beliefs, that is a justified wish and it should be honored.

It can't be and should not be and I'll tell you why:

Religion is an opinion. If you are going to ban disagreeable opinions because people don't want to hear them, how many opinions are going to be allowed?

Not many, are there?

Think about that. Just for a second.

RevMARKSman

29th November 2006, 23:02

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack of existence, is it? Did the sun really revolve around the earth when people thought it did?

Actually, scientists routinely use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

It's the only way to avoid complete bullshit, like unicorns, goblins, monsters under the bed, magic, and thinking the glass has water in it when it really doesn't.

There was evidence that the sun was stationary and the earth moved...they just hadn't found it yet.
So they thought that the earth was stationary and the sun moved, and RIGHTLY SO. Old science was replaced by better science. That's how science works.

By denying the ability/right to express one's faith or opinion of faith in public, right?

Direct yes/no question.

No.

Denying the right to express reactionary opinions that have been proven incorrect time and time again.

If that happens to include religious beliefs, so be it.

However, it may be logical to one person to believe in that message whereas it is not to you.

Not when there are many absolute, objective arguments disproving the existence of God entirely.

If the message imparts something rationally false, it is entirely illogical to accept the message.

So the state/society should control what opinions they voice in public, correct?

If yes, is that freedom?

Society will.

If that preacher has a right to say his bullshit, I have just as much of a right to punch him in the face. Remember, rights and freedoms are created and DEFINED by societies.

I disagree, they are wholly reasonable. My rejection is based on the fact, which neither of you can refute, that rationality and logic are not perfectly objective among people outside of pure mathematics.
Wrong. When one is dealing not with the material world (which by the way, cannot be provent to exist, but what's the fucking point?), in the realm of philosophy, logic is always objective. Personal experiences etc. don't exist when you're talking about theory.

God's existence and wrath are a risk. You have to judge the probability that you'll encounter that risk, don't you? To you it's zero percent. To another person it's 100 percent. If a person perceives a probability of 100% that he'll risk the wrath of God by misbehaving, then it is entirely rational to follow that God's rules, isn't it?

Unless the person's perception is wrong, and it has been objectively proven that their perception is wrong. It has been objectively proven that God does not exist. Therefore, any actions, arguments, theories, etc. based on the existence of God are invalid and irrational because they are based on an irrational premise.

You don't know 100%...

You might burn in hell for eternity...

Take the bet or no? There's quite a literature on risk-taking, you should check into it sometime.

You might, but with a few clicks you can see material reality and you know it. You know there are thousands of arguments out there, yet you don't decide to even look at anything but blind faith. With faith you don't know anything. If you're rational, you can make more correct decisions based on what you want.

One of us says differing opinions should not be expressed in public.

Lovely strawman. Can I hang something like that in my garden, or is it your intellectual property now? :rolleyes:

Religion is an opinion. If you are going to ban disagreeable opinions because people don't want to hear them, how many opinions are going to be allowed?

Not many, are there?

Think about that. Just for a second.

It happens to be an incorrect opinion--an easily refutable incorrect opinion at that. We aren't looking to ban "disagreeable" opinions, just the frankly dumb ones. If you want to believe your own private fantasy, go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to tolerate you blaring it out like an idiot.

manic expression

29th November 2006, 23:51

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 29, 2006 10:21 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 29, 2006 10:21 pm)
manic [email protected] 29, 2006 09:48 pm

A few points.

That doesn't mean we can make the public sphere secular. It is a proven fact that leaving religion to private life is far better for everyone. The argument many on here have is that religion should be the business of the religious person and that is all.

By denying the ability/right to express one's faith or opinion of faith in public, right?

Direct yes/no question.

Oh, and by the way, the Abrahamic faiths are wholly in defiance of "logic and common sense". Read the Bible, it constantly and consistently states that faith, not logic and not reason, but faith only, is important. Christianity shuns such things in favor of blind belief. So no, it is not just a matter of a different path of logic and reason in this instance.

I partially agree with your assessment of the bible.

However, it may be logical to one person to believe in that message whereas it is not to you.

Again, those people can have their conclusions and eat them, too. However, they must restrict those conclusions and practices to their privacy.

So the state/society should control what opinions they voice in public, correct?

If yes, is that freedom?

The person you are responding to feels that religion is misled. Is s/he supposed to NOT express this conclusion? Of course not, s/he is perfectly reasonable in voicing their objection to religion

Agreed.

(whereas you are unreasonable in your objections).

I disagree, they are wholly reasonable. My rejection is based on the fact, which neither of you can refute, that rationality and logic are not perfectly objective among people outside of pure mathematics.

God's existence and wrath are a risk. You have to judge the probability that you'll encounter that risk, don't you? To you it's zero percent. To another person it's 100 percent. If a person perceives a probability of 100% that he'll risk the wrath of God by misbehaving, then it is entirely rational to follow that God's rules, isn't it?

This is pascal's wager in action. You don't think he's there...but you don't know do you?

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack of existence, is it? Did the sun really revolve around the earth when people thought it did?

You don't know 100%...

You might burn in hell for eternity...

Take the bet or no? There's quite a literature on risk-taking, you should check into it sometime.

Where's your respect for different opinions now? Oh, that's right, it was always just a figment of your delusion.

One of us says differing opinions should not be expressed in public.

One of us has simply disagreed with an opinion but as yet has not stated any belief that his opinion should be restricted in any way, shape or form.

You make for me an honest assessment of who has respect for differing opinions.

Lastly, if someone wishes NOT to hear someone's religious beliefs, that is a justified wish and it should be honored.

It can't be and should not be and I'll tell you why:

Religion is an opinion. If you are going to ban disagreeable opinions because people don't want to hear them, how many opinions are going to be allowed?

Not many, are there?

Think about that. Just for a second.[/b]
Religion is not for the public sphere. That is all. As for "expressions" such as clothing and other articles, that can be considered personal. It must be, at the very least, genuine and have an established purpose. For example, a shirt that says "JESUS IS THE ONE SAVIOUR" would not count as such. However, I can understand a society that says that only mandatory articles, such as the Sikh turban, would be permissible (Burqas are, in fact, not required by Muslim women; crosses are not required by Christianity).

I do respect traditions which do not violate or harm anyone. However, traditions must also respect the community. It's difficult to set rules against women dressing modestly, for instance, but it is justified to disallow the forcing of women to dress modestly.

This is not clear-cut as you make it seem. If you take religious dogma seriously and follow it as it says to follow it, "mandatory" things are unacceptable to societies which value sanity. Thankfully, we don't stone people who touch pigskin on Sunday, even though that's laid out in the Bible as something to be done. We don't do a crap load of crap that we're supposed to do, so society has always overriden religion when reasonable. This is nothing new.

It doesn't matter if a person believes the message is logical, because it isn't. I'm not just saying this, Christianity says it many times.

The community should deem such opinions appropriate for personal life only. Secularism in society has a proven track record of creating more harmonious communities.

Freedom? It is freedom from the undue influence of religion. It is freedom to a better community. It is freedom to believe what one wants to believe in their personal life. That freedom is to be pursued.

Rousseau said it is justified to "force people to be free", and I do believe I agree.

Rationality and logic are not perfectly objective in science? The gray area may increase, but there is a significant amount of accuracy, is there not?

I'm speaking in separation from my beliefs on divinity. To me, this has little to do with percieved probability, this has to do with what can be observed in this world. The questions of divinity are impossible to ascertain completely, the questions of divinity divide and set one neighbor against another, the questions of divinity are to be answered personally.

Oh, and we can have this discussion elsewhere (since it has nothing to do with what we're talking about), but it is quite clear that no one will burn in hell for eternity. It violates established truths, it is an impossibility. However, this is not the time or the place for such a discussion.

No, one of us says that religion should be peddled in society, something that is shown throughout history to be a disruptive (at best) influence; that questions which deal with personal beliefs should be public; that god has a place in the public square. The other says that religion is best kept as a personal matter, for this is proven to work better for everyone; that personal beliefs which do not deal with society should be personal; that god has a place in people's minds and hearts, people's homes and temples, if they wish god to be there.

You called a forthcoming expression of his own opinion to be "arrogant", and that he had his "panties in a wad". Is this respecting his opinions? Far from it. Perhaps "tolerate" is a better word than "respect".

Religious beliefs are not opinions which pertain to the public square. They are opinions which are solely individuals' answers to questions which deal solely with them and only them. A belief on the subject of divinity is not an opinion on tarrifs or administrative policy, it is a personal belief that has no place in public life whatsoever.

This isn't about "disagreeable opinions", for I have no problem with differing views (provided they are not intolerant, as a society should not tolerate intolerance), I do have a problem with personal answers to personal questions being allowed where they don't belong. I do have a problem with personal issues being forced down people's throats. A person does not have to listen to other people's stories of sexual activity, why should we force them to listen to something which is similarly personal (and far, far, far more divisive)?

Again, you make the mistake of equivocating beliefs on private matters with opinions that pertain to the community. Opinions are allowed, be sure of that, but to catagorize religion as the same thing dishonors other people, the religion itself, and is deliterious to the community. How many reasons are there for that? Not many.

uber-liberal

30th November 2006, 02:52

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+November 29, 2006 08:47 pm--> (MonicaTTmed @ November 29, 2006 08:47 pm)
uber-[email protected] 29, 2006 03:26 pm
You just don't get it. Try being nice to people for a change instead of your normal shitty self.
The dying cry of an overinflated argument.

Well, at least you don't bullshit yourself by acting like you still have an argument. [/b]
I'm not diluted enough to believe you actually care that right and wrong are purely subjective and wholey in the individual's perspective.
I still have an argument. I just get tired of beating the drums for those with subjective hearing.

Jazzratt

30th November 2006, 16:29

Originally posted by uber-liberal+November 30, 2006 02:52 am--> (uber-liberal @ November 30, 2006 02:52 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 08:47 pm

uber-[email protected] 29, 2006 03:26 pm
You just don't get it. Try being nice to people for a change instead of your normal shitty self.
The dying cry of an overinflated argument.

Well, at least you don't bullshit yourself by acting like you still have an argument.
I'm not diluted enough to believe you actually care that right and wrong are purely subjective and wholey in the individual's perspective. [/b]
Diluted? What the fuck are you talking about?

Also, do you have any proof of your subjectivist bullshit because as far as I'm aware there is only one objective, material reality and therefore only one right. Many wrongs though, like assuming a God.

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 16:30

Edited for brevity.

Originally posted by ManicExpression
I do respect traditions which do not violate or harm anyone. However, traditions must also respect the community. It's difficult to set rules against women dressing modestly, for instance, but it is justified to disallow the forcing of women to dress modestly.

In a state like the U.S. no woman who dresses modestly for religious reasons is forced to do so...she is choosing to express her religious beliefs, which she has chosen to follow.

This being the case, what do you propose, that society investiate her to determine if she's following religious tradition or it's just her taste? If it's religious tradition, do you force her to dress immodestly?

This is not clear-cut as you make it seem. If you take religious dogma seriously and follow it as it says to follow it, "mandatory" things are unacceptable to societies which value sanity.

But the choice to follow religious dogma is an individual one that society has no right or feasible ability to regulate outside of using telescreens in people's homes.

It doesn't matter if a person believes the message is logical, because it isn't. I'm not just saying this, Christianity says it many times.

Again this is your interpretation and cannot nor should be enforced on others, unless you claim some right to do so for others.

Do you?

The community should deem such opinions appropriate for personal life only.

Your opinion, not fact. Correct?

What other opinions are to be banished to the private realm? Are there limits?

Freedom? It is freedom from the undue influence of religion.

"undue" is opinion. Influences can be rejected, while restrictions on expression are enforced. This is the key difference between you and I.

Frankly your opinion suggests you want expression prohibited to prevent opinions with which you disagree from entering the marketplace of ideas. Is that correct, yes or no?

It is freedom to a better community. It is freedom to believe what one wants to believe in their personal life.

That already exists in the United States.

That freedom is to be pursued.

But apparently not expressed. You want to limit personal beliefs to "pursuit" so long as it is not expressed. Yes or no?

Rousseau said it is justified to "force people to be free", and I do believe I agree.

But you're not forcing people to be free...you're prohibiting free expression. Frankly you're forcing people to be "free, so long as they do what I approve", which is not really free is it?

Rationality and logic are not perfectly objective in science? The gray area may increase, but there is a significant amount of accuracy, is there not?

There can be perfect objectivity only where math and the physical sciences are concerned - but even in the physical sciences, the bias of the scientist can be reflected in an experiment. You cannot refute that.

The problem is, the existence of God and morality is not in the realm of physical science, therefore there is no objective statement that can be made on it.

The questions of divinity are impossible to ascertain completely, the questions of divinity divide and set one neighbor against another, the questions of divinity are to be answered personally.

So your solution is to make people prisoners in their own skulls, so far as moral and divine questions are concerned, for the sake of stability.

It isn't worth it. Stability is not worth restricting individual freedom to express one's most important personal beliefs. Or would you like to argue that it is? Because if that's the case, I can argue that our society would be much more stable if we executed all the communists. Stability trumps, so you should just accept the bullet in the back of your head, right? Or is it different when it happens to you?

Oh, and we can have this discussion elsewhere (since it has nothing to do with what we're talking about), but it is quite clear that no one will burn in hell for eternity. It violates established truths, it is an impossibility. However, this is not the time or the place for such a discussion.

It's also merely an opinion and a guess, and cannot be factually stated. It's also an opinion I agree with, so we wouldn't have much to discuss.

No, one of us says that religion should be peddled in society, something that is shown throughout history to be a disruptive (at best) influence;

Disruptive? So has communism.

Oh but that's different isn't it.

The other says that religion is best kept as a personal matter, for this is proven to work better for everyone; that personal beliefs which do not deal with society should be personal; that god has a place in people's minds and hearts, people's homes and temples, if they wish god to be there.

The problem with that is that people bring their inner personal beliefs into their every day activities. How do you plan to eliminate that? Telescreens?

You called a forthcoming expression of his own opinion to be "arrogant", and that he had his "panties in a wad". Is this respecting his opinions? Far from it. Perhaps "tolerate" is a better word than "respect".

They are arrogant because he believes he's enlightened enough to determine for others what is rational and what is not. Believing you know what's best for others is the definition of arrogance.

Religious beliefs are not opinions which pertain to the public square. They are opinions which are solely individuals' answers to questions which deal solely with them and only them. A belief on the subject of divinity is not an opinion on tarrifs or administrative policy, it is a personal belief that has no place in public life whatsoever.

Your opinion. I see you're not going to answer my direct question as to which is more respectful of dissenting opinion: disagreeing with it or advocating that it be banned.

So I will repeat my question: which is more respectful? Disagreement or banishment?

This isn't about "disagreeable opinions", for I have no problem with differing views (provided they are not intolerant, as a society should not tolerate intolerance), I do have a problem with personal answers to personal questions being allowed where they don't belong.

Why is it fair that you get to decide for others what is "personal" and what is not personal?

I do have a problem with personal issues being forced down people's throats. A person does not have to listen to other people's stories of sexual activity, why should we force them to listen to something which is similarly personal (and far, far, far more divisive)?

How is anyone forced to listen to religious opinion? If it's on TV, you change the channel or turn it off. If it's someone at your door, you slam the door in their face. If it's someone on the sidewalk, you walk on by.

Granted if that person is in a park and you want to enjoy that park, you're going to have to put up with them, but...

Again, you make the mistake of equivocating beliefs on private matters with opinions that pertain to the community. Opinions are allowed, be sure of that, but to catagorize religion as the same thing dishonors other people, the religion itself, and is deliterious to the community. How many reasons are there for that? Not many.

The mistake I make is that unlike you I have not anointed myself as the decider of what opinions shall be "good" for society and which shall be "bad". In actuality, I believe your desire to grant yourself this power is a very serious mistake on your part.

Again, you are avoiding my central question: why is it up to you to decide which opinions benefit and which opinions are detrimental to society?

Answer this question, please.

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 16:45

By denying the ability/right to express one's faith or opinion of faith in public, right?

Direct yes/no question.

No.

Denying the right to express reactionary opinions that have been proven incorrect time and time again.

If that happens to include religious beliefs, so be it.

You contradict yourself: you say "no" to the direct question whether rights to expression will be denied, then you tell me denying rights to expression will be denied if necessary because it's correct.

However, it may be logical to one person to believe in that message whereas it is not to you.

Not when there are many absolute, objective arguments disproving the existence of God entirely.

No there are not. That those arguments are absolute and objective are entirely your opinion.

So the state/society should control what opinions they voice in public, correct?

If yes, is that freedom?

Society will.

So yes.

If that preacher has a right to say his bullshit, I have just as much of a right to punch him in the face. Remember, rights and freedoms are created and DEFINED by societies.

And you seek to have those rights limited. Yes or no?

It has been objectively proven that God does not exist.

It hasn't.

You might, but with a few clicks you can see material reality and you know it. You know there are thousands of arguments out there, yet you don't decide to even look at anything but blind faith. With faith you don't know anything. If you're rational, you can make more correct decisions based on what you want.

All arguments are based partially on faith. No argument in the philosophical or political realm is perfectly objective. I implement public policy as created by the political process for a living - I can tell you without question that politics and policy-making is inherently subjective. Objective data is used only to supplement subjective arguments, and it is entirely human nature to disregard objective data that does not support our subjective opinion. You are not immune from that, regardless of your arrogant belief that you are.

Any system you implement will not change that fact. Communism is no different because its central belief is that justice means putting the workers in charge of production. There is no objective rationale that backs up that opinion. "Workers owning the means of production is just" is not objectively true, it is subjectively true to those who agree. Capitalism is no different.

One of us says differing opinions should not be expressed in public.

Lovely strawman. Can I hang something like that in my garden, or is it your intellectual property now? :rolleyes:

That made no sense.

Have I advocated limiting expression? I have not. He has, and you have. By definition you two are for less freedom than am I. You cannot refute that.

It happens to be an incorrect opinion--an easily refutable incorrect opinion at that. We aren't looking to ban "disagreeable" opinions, just the frankly dumb ones. If you want to believe your own private fantasy, go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to tolerate you blaring it out like an idiot.

Like ManicExpression you refuse to answer the central question:

Why is it ok for you to determine for others which opinions are "dumb" or "disagreeable" and therefore to be banished from society? What would you think if people who believed in those opinions did the same to you?

Why is it different when you do it?

It isn't. You can't refute that.

RevMARKSman

30th November 2006, 17:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 11:45 am

By denying the ability/right to express one's faith or opinion of faith in public, right?

Direct yes/no question.

No.

Denying the right to express reactionary opinions that have been proven incorrect time and time again.

If that happens to include religious beliefs, so be it.

You contradict yourself: you say "no" to the direct question whether rights to expression will be denied, then you tell me denying rights to expression will be denied if necessary because it's correct.

However, it may be logical to one person to believe in that message whereas it is not to you.

Not when there are many absolute, objective arguments disproving the existence of God entirely.

No there are not. That those arguments are absolute and objective are entirely your opinion.

So the state/society should control what opinions they voice in public, correct?

If yes, is that freedom?

Society will.

So yes.

If that preacher has a right to say his bullshit, I have just as much of a right to punch him in the face. Remember, rights and freedoms are created and DEFINED by societies.

And you seek to have those rights limited. Yes or no?

It has been objectively proven that God does not exist.

It hasn't.

You might, but with a few clicks you can see material reality and you know it. You know there are thousands of arguments out there, yet you don't decide to even look at anything but blind faith. With faith you don't know anything. If you're rational, you can make more correct decisions based on what you want.

All arguments are based partially on faith. No argument in the philosophical or political realm is perfectly objective. I implement public policy as created by the political process for a living - I can tell you without question that politics and policy-making is inherently subjective. Objective data is used only to supplement subjective arguments, and it is entirely human nature to disregard objective data that does not support our subjective opinion. You are not immune from that, regardless of your arrogant belief that you are.

Any system you implement will not change that fact. Communism is no different because its central belief is that justice means putting the workers in charge of production. There is no objective rationale that backs up that opinion. "Workers owning the means of production is just" is not objectively true, it is subjectively true to those who agree. Capitalism is no different.

One of us says differing opinions should not be expressed in public.

Lovely strawman. Can I hang something like that in my garden, or is it your intellectual property now? :rolleyes:

That made no sense.

Have I advocated limiting expression? I have not. He has, and you have. By definition you two are for less freedom than am I. You cannot refute that.

It happens to be an incorrect opinion--an easily refutable incorrect opinion at that. We aren't looking to ban "disagreeable" opinions, just the frankly dumb ones. If you want to believe your own private fantasy, go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to tolerate you blaring it out like an idiot.

Like ManicExpression you refuse to answer the central question:

Why is it ok for you to determine for others which opinions are "dumb" or "disagreeable" and therefore to be banished from society? What would you think if people who believed in those opinions did the same to you?

Why is it different when you do it?

It isn't. You can't refute that.

You contradict yourself: you say "no" to the direct question whether rights to expression will be denied, then you tell me denying rights to expression will be denied if necessary because it's correct.

No.

I said "rights to express one's opinion of faith" IN THEMSELVES will not be denied. BUT if they have been proven to be incorrect and reactionary, THEN they fall into the "incorrect/reactionary" category and WILL be denied.

No there are not. That those arguments are absolute and objective are entirely your opinion.

So saying "that's your opinion" after everything I say, even if it's entirely based on logic (no empirical evidence, nothing that has interpretations, etc.) refutes it? :blink: Strange world.

But then again, that's only your opinion. You don't have to justify it even though it's irrational. Just condemn other people by saying "that's only your opinion." :rolleyes:

It hasn't.

That's just your opinion... :rolleyes:

I've presented many arguments. You don't like them, therefore you say they're false. Conclusion: you are a nutcase.

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 17:32

I said "rights to express one's opinion of faith" IN THEMSELVES will not be denied. BUT if they have been proven to be incorrect and reactionary, THEN they fall into the "incorrect/reactionary" category and WILL be denied.

My question was about public expression.

So you are on record as advocating that rights to express oneself in public be limited.

This means you have no credible claim to support freedom.

So saying "that's your opinion" after everything I say, even if it's entirely based on logic (no empirical evidence, nothing that has interpretations, etc.) refutes it? :blink: Strange world.

Yes because it's the truth. Maybe you're not understanding me.

The existence or nonexistence of God has not been objectively proven. Any "logical" arguments you may have are tainted by your own personal bias. There are arguments for God that contain "logic", you subjectively deny that they are logical.

Regardless of how strongly you believe it, there is no objective proof that God does not exist; nor is there objective proof that he/she/it/they does/do.

Sorry.

But then again, that's only your opinion.

When you get down to the bottom of it yes. Same as with you.

You don't have to justify it even though it's irrational. Just condemn other people by saying "that's only your opinion." :rolleyes:

I'm not condemning you. You think I'm condemning you because you're personally invested in your opinion. You view an attack on your opinion as an attack on you. Not true. I don't know you, I don't condemn you personally.

The fact is, your argument is based on your opinion as is mine.

I've presented many arguments. You don't like them, therefore you say they're false. Conclusion: you are a nutcase.

Actually the conclusion is that we have differing opinions and that is all. Oh and you favor limiting people's ability to express themselves in public while I do not.

I see you evaded my central question. I would too if I were you.

manic expression

30th November 2006, 18:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 04:30 pm
In a state like the U.S. no woman who dresses modestly for religious reasons is forced to do so...she is choosing to express her religious beliefs, which she has chosen to follow.

This being the case, what do you propose, that society investiate her to determine if she's following religious tradition or it's just her taste? If it's religious tradition, do you force her to dress immodestly?

There can be, and there often is, pressure from the family and religious community. That pressure should be lessened. If someone dresses modestly, fine, but it has to be 100% their choice and free from familial or external pressures.

What I propose is that people's personal choices in religion are kept personal. This can be done in a number of ways. If a girl feels that she does not want to wear something her parents want her to wear, society would side with the girl. If that same girl later decides she would like to wear it, society would recognize that it is HER personal decision.

But the choice to follow religious dogma is an individual one that society has no right or feasible ability to regulate outside of using telescreens in people's homes.

If someone stones their gay neighbor, is that simply a "choice to follow religious dogma" which "society has no right...to regulate"? Of course not. Society CAN and HAS disallowed certain "expressions of faith", and that is more than justified.

Again this is your interpretation and cannot nor should be enforced on others, unless you claim some right to do so for others.

Do you?

It's the interpretation of anyone who seriously understands Christianity and the Bible. Anyone who thinks that Christianity is predominately based on logic is wrong, that's a fact that is no more "enforced on others" than saying that 2+2=4.

Your opinion, not fact. Correct?

What other opinions are to be banished to the private realm? Are there limits?

What, exactly, is your point here? To prove that my opinion is an opinion? Clarify yourself.

Opinions, provided they are not intolerant IMO, that deal with society have a place in the public realm. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with society, they have everything to do with a person's personal decisions. I've made the limits somewhat clear, at the very least.

"undue" is opinion. Influences can be rejected, while restrictions on expression are enforced. This is the key difference between you and I.

Frankly your opinion suggests you want expression prohibited to prevent opinions with which you disagree from entering the marketplace of ideas. Is that correct, yes or no?

Yes, my opinion is an opinion. So is the opinion that it is a "due" influence. Where did that point get us? Exactly nowhere.

Religion is an undue influence because it is unnecessarily divisive and disruptive to a community. Communities which are publicly secular are better off, that is observable in history. Influences cannot be ignored, and this influence does not belong in the community. One real key difference is that you ignore the effects of allowing religious beliefs to be peddled mindlessly. Also, you effectively enforce your views on those who would rather not have religion thrown in their face.

No, it is not correct, primarily because you don't know what my religious beliefs are, or if I lack them. Until you do, you cannot say I simply desire to regulate differing opinions, since you don't even know that I differ. Oh, and my opinions aren't relevant here.

That already exists in the United States.

No, for people do not have freedom FROM religion if they desire it. The public sphere is awash with religious rhetoric and disruption. Do you even know half the crap that atheists have to take today, much less in past decades (not to mention what neo-pagans and other non-Christians have to deal with)? In the US, we do not recognize the public sphere as a secular place where religion does not belong. We SHOULD, and the people who established the country would be appalled (they were fiercely secular, almost anti-religious), but "should" matters little in the US.

But apparently not expressed. You want to limit personal beliefs to "pursuit" so long as it is not expressed. Yes or no?

No, it is freedom for everyone when religious beliefs are private and public life secular. People are free to practice what they wish or not practice altogether without some idiot telling them they're going to hell, people are free to make their OWN decisions independent of others, which is the way it should be. I want to make personal beliefs personal, which is better for the beliefs, better for the community, and better for everyone in it.

But you're not forcing people to be free...you're prohibiting free expression. Frankly you're forcing people to be "free, so long as they do what I approve", which is not really free is it?

I fear you don't understand. Disallowing religion in public life ensures that people are free to follow or not follow religion elsewhere. This is forcing people to have true freedom, a freedom which permeates every level of society.

In the same way, society forces people to not have sex in public, does that mean they do not have the freedom to pursue whatever (consented) sexual desires they wish in private?

There can be perfect objectivity only where math and the physical sciences are concerned - but even in the physical sciences, the bias of the scientist can be reflected in an experiment. You cannot refute that.

The problem is, the existence of God and morality is not in the realm of physical science, therefore there is no objective statement that can be made on it.

I did say there is gray area in non-math fields. However, this gray area is something we recognize, but it is not something that stops us from making reasonable conclusions. No one would get anywhere it did stop us. So, following this, accurate and reasonable conclusions can be made.

More importantly, the only objective statement we CAN make is that nothing can be proven. If nothing can be proven, then it is only fair to keep such beliefs on the subject a personal matter.

So your solution is to make people prisoners in their own skulls, so far as moral and divine questions are concerned, for the sake of stability.

It isn't worth it. Stability is not worth restricting individual freedom to express one's most important personal beliefs. Or would you like to argue that it is? Because if that's the case, I can argue that our society would be much more stable if we executed all the communists. Stability trumps, so you should just accept the bullet in the back of your head, right? Or is it different when it happens to you?

No, you are once again misled. People are free to believe what they will, they are not impeded from believing anything. So no, they aren't prisoners at all, they just need to leave their religious beliefs where they belong.

It is worth it. On one hand, people have the ability to form their own beliefs and practice them, or simply choose not to believe in religion at all. This means they are completely free in every way, including from the maliciousness or invalid criticism of others (and in religion, there is no end to invalid criticism). On the other hand, everyone can operate and live in public without the problems of religious division. Public life is more harmonious, and people recognize their neighbors as fellow community members first and everything else second. This brings both stability and the total ability to formulate and pursue whatever beliefs one may have.

Do I need to, once again, point out the obvious differences between religious beliefs and political convictions? Political opinions have everything to do with society, and so they must be allowed in public, and they should be encouraged (intolerance is a different story IMO). Religious beliefs deal with personal matters and not those of society, and so that is where they belong.

It's also merely an opinion and a guess, and cannot be factually stated. It's also an opinion I agree with, so we wouldn't have much to discuss.

We can make factual conclusions. If there is smoke, can one assume there is fire?

Disruptive? So has communism.

Oh but that's different isn't it.

Yes, it is quite different. Communism is about society and the community, and so it is unreasonable for the community to restrict it. Religion, on the other hand, is not the same.

The problem with that is that people bring their inner personal beliefs into their every day activities. How do you plan to eliminate that? Telescreens?

As in a Christian doing charity work (which wouldn't be needed in a communist society) due to belief his or her religion? That's perfectly fine, it's not discreetly religious. It matters little where an action springs from, as long as it does not bring religion into the public sphere. In this case, it does not.

They are arrogant because he believes he's enlightened enough to determine for others what is rational and what is not. Believing you know what's best for others is the definition of arrogance.

Your opinion, IMO, does not respect their opinions, your opinion merely tolerates, which is not the same.

Your opinion. I see you're not going to answer my direct question as to which is more respectful of dissenting opinion: disagreeing with it or advocating that it be banned.

So I will repeat my question: which is more respectful? Disagreement or banishment?

Forcing people to endure something they don't want to endure is disrespectful, allowing religion to disrupt a community unnecessarily is disrespectful, subjecting people's personal beliefs to public criticism and derision is disrespectful. Keeping personal beliefs personal is respectful of those who have the beliefs, those who do not wish to endure the unnecessary public expression of those beliefs and the beliefs themselves.

Why is it fair that you get to decide for others what is "personal" and what is not personal?

Are you saying that religion should pervade every level of government, culture and otherwise? That is false. Religion is personal. In other words, as fair as it is for me to tell someone that 2+2=4.

How is anyone forced to listen to religious opinion? If it's on TV, you change the channel or turn it off. If it's someone at your door, you slam the door in their face. If it's someone on the sidewalk, you walk on by.

Granted if that person is in a park and you want to enjoy that park, you're going to have to put up with them, but...

Its existence is enough, its existence in public areas is effectively forcing people to listen to it. Are you saying you have no problem with someone badgering you on the sidewalk? Are you saying people should just "ignore" what they shouldn't accept? Are you saying that it is fair to subject people to being practically harassed?

No, no one should have to put up with such a thing in a park. A park is a park, not a pulpit.

The mistake I make is that unlike you I have not anointed myself as the decider of what opinions shall be "good" for society and which shall be "bad". In actuality, I believe your desire to grant yourself this power is a very serious mistake on your part.

You have done the exact same thing, whether you choose to recongize it or not. You have decided that it is better for society to allow religion in public. That is just as much of a decision and "self-anointment" as what I am doing.

Again, you are avoiding my central question: why is it up to you to decide which opinions benefit and which opinions are detrimental to society?

Answer this question, please.

Why is it up to you to decide what is better for society?

You are avoiding a big part of my argument: that I am not deciding that Buddhism is beneficial and that Christianity is not, I am deciding that ALL opinions on religion, including those of atheists (strong atheists especially), are inappropriate for the public sphere. Address this.

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 18:42

There can be, and there often is, pressure from the family and religious community. That pressure should be lessened. If someone dresses modestly, fine, but it has to be 100% their choice and free from familial or external pressures.

1. Explain why it's up to you to determine whether or not people's style of dress is "fine".

2. Explain in specific detail how you intend to enforce the above.

What I propose is that people's personal choices in religion are kept personal. This can be done in a number of ways. If a girl feels that she does not want to wear something her parents want her to wear, society would side with the girl. If that same girl later decides she would like to wear it, society would recognize that it is HER personal decision.

You can include this in #2, but explain in specific detail how "society would side with the girl". What actions would be taken? What would happen?

Specific.

If someone stones their gay neighbor, is that simply a "choice to follow religious dogma" which "society has no right...to regulate"? Of course not. Society CAN and HAS disallowed certain "expressions of faith", and that is more than justified.

Strawman. Stoning violates the rights of the other person. Expression in the form of speaking or writing does not.

If you're going to claim the right to not be offended, how can that be fairly enforced when two people will be offended by the opposite opinions?

Explain in specific detail.

It's the interpretation of anyone who seriously understands Christianity and the Bible.

I'm willing to bet that other people would disagree with your proclamation that you seriously understand the bible.

Explain why your understanding should be codified into law and their's should not.

Be specific.

Your opinion, not fact. Correct?

What other opinions are to be banished to the private realm? Are there limits?

What, exactly, is your point here? To prove that my opinion is an opinion? Clarify yourself.

No. My question here is, if it's your opinion that religion (which is an opinion) is wrong, and society should maximize limits on people's ability to express themselves religiously based on your opinions, are their any othe opininions that should be prohibited? Is it just you that gets to choose which opinions are to be restricted?

Opinions, provided they are not intolerant IMO, that deal with society have a place in the public realm. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with society, they have everything to do with a person's personal decisions. I've made the limits somewhat clear, at the very least.

But you have not answered my question as to why it should be up to you to determine what opinions can be made public.

Religion is an undue influence because it is unnecessarily divisive and disruptive to a community. Communities which are publicly secular are better off, that is observable in history. Influences cannot be ignored, and this influence does not belong in the community. One real key difference is that you ignore the effects of allowing religious beliefs to be peddled mindlessly. Also, you effectively enforce your views on those who would rather not have religion thrown in their face.

There's no evidence that secularism guarantees stability. If there were, the communists on this board would get along great. They do not.

North Korea is secular, is it stable or friendly? No.

Views cannot be forced on other people. Again, if views are on television, you can turn the channel. If someone is talking about them on the sidewalk, you can ignore them.

You know what you sound like? You sound like the fools who think allowing gay marriage will make people gay.

The reason you cannot stop expression for the reason that people might be offended is because that cannot be applied fairly. The religious person is offended by your secularism. Fairness dictates that if you're going to ban speech because you're offended then so can he, doesn't it? How do we do that?

You can't, which leads us right back to our central question: why do you get to choose which speech is "right"?

No, it is not correct, primarily because you don't know what my religious beliefs are, or if I lack them. Until you do, you cannot say I simply desire to regulate differing opinions, since you don't even know that I differ. Oh, and my opinions aren't relevant here.

You do not desire to regulate differing opinions?

Then why do you seek to regulate the public expression of differing opinions?

If you didn't care about their opinions you wouldn't care about their expression, unless you have a severe willpower problem.

No, for people do not have freedom FROM religion if they desire it.

Such a freedom does not exist because it cannot exist for the reason I stated above: you have no right to not be offended because that right cannot be fairly protected.

You'd have to ban every single opinion.

I'd like to see you actually address this problem.

The public sphere is awash with religious rhetoric and disruption.

Ignore it. It's not that hard. I do.

Do you even know half the crap that atheists have to take today, much less in past decades (not to mention what neo-pagans and other non-Christians have to deal with)? In the US, we do not recognize the public sphere as a secular place where religion does not belong. We SHOULD,

then get the first amendment repealed.

and the people who established the country would be appalled (they were fiercely secular, almost anti-religious), but "should" matters little in the US.

The founding fathers were not fiercely secular and your statement that they were suggests you don't know anything about American history or you just like to make stuff up. Either way it seriously reduces your already flimsy credibility.

The founding fathers were deeply religious. However even they understood precisely what I am talking about and what you refuse to address: you cannot fairly stop the expression of one religion (opinion) because then you'd have to stop the expression of all others.

Deal with it.

But apparently not expressed. You want to limit personal beliefs to "pursuit" so long as it is not expressed. Yes or no?

No, it is freedom for everyone when religious beliefs are private and public life secular. People are free to practice what they wish or not practice altogether without some idiot telling them they're going to hell, people are free to make their OWN decisions independent of others, which is the way it should be. I want to make personal beliefs personal, which is better for the beliefs, better for the community, and better for everyone in it.

By limiting its expression in public? Yes or no?

If yes, then your answer to the first question is "yes".

But you're not forcing people to be free...you're prohibiting free expression. Frankly you're forcing people to be "free, so long as they do what I approve", which is not really free is it?

I fear you don't understand. Disallowing religion in public life ensures that people are free to follow or not follow religion elsewhere. This is forcing people to have true freedom, a freedom which permeates every level of society.

So to you, the way to make people free is to limit their freedom in public?

Yes or no?

Right now you're answering "yes", which is completely absurd. Your argument makes no sense at all.

In the same way, society forces people to not have sex in public, does that mean they do not have the freedom to pursue whatever (consented) sexual desires they wish in private?

No but it does limit their freedom to have sex in public, does it not?

Yes or no?

I did say there is gray area in non-math fields. However, this gray area is something we recognize, but it is not something that stops us from making reasonable conclusions. No one would get anywhere it did stop us. So, following this, accurate and reasonable conclusions can be made.

Which because of the gray area to which you admit, are made on subjective criteria.

No, you are once again misled. People are free to believe what they will, they are not impeded from believing anything. So no, they aren't prisoners at all, they just need to leave their religious beliefs where they belong.

People are not prisoners....but they may not express themselves in public.

Contradiction. How do you not see it? Or are you just being disingenous?

It is worth it. On one hand, people have the ability to form their own beliefs and practice them, or simply choose not to believe in religion at all. This means they are completely free in every way, including from the maliciousness or invalid criticism of others (and in religion, there is no end to invalid criticism).

Whether criticism is valid or not is again, highly subjective.

Why is your criticism valid and others' is not?

I skipped the rest because we are going around and around. Hopefully by now you are starting to get my point.

Again, you are avoiding my central question: why is it up to you to decide which opinions benefit and which opinions are detrimental to society?

Answer this question, please.

Why is it up to you to decide what is better for society?

No, I grow tired of your evasion. Answer the question or, since you've slightly varied your response, answer why it's up to you to decide that certain dicussions are to be banished to the private realm by law.

Once you finally answer my question I shall answer yours.

RevMARKSman

30th November 2006, 21:19

This means you have no credible claim to support freedom.

So freedom is defined as "the right to express oneself in public regardless of what that may entail"?

Somehow I doubt it.

There is no society where everyone has infinite freedom. The rapist and the one who is being raped both have theoretical freedoms: The freedom to rape and the freedom to not be raped. Whichever side you choose, you will be limiting someone's freedom.

So I could just as well say that you do not have any credible claim to support freedom because you do not support someone's freedom to kill religious bullshitters.

Yes because it's the truth. Maybe you're not understanding me.

My argument was not tainted by "personal experience" or a "subjective view of the world." I can give reasons for every step in a logical argument. Once I do, you have to find an error if you want to refute it.

[QUOTE]I said "rights to express one's opinion of faith" IN THEMSELVES will not be denied. BUT if they have been proven to be incorrect and reactionary, THEN they fall into the "incorrect/reactionary" category and WILL be denied.

My question was about public expression.

So you are on record as advocating that rights to express oneself in public be limited.

This means you have no credible claim to support freedom.

So saying "that's your opinion" after everything I say, even if it's entirely based on logic (no empirical evidence, nothing that has interpretations, etc.) refutes it? :blink: Strange world.

Yes because it's the truth. Maybe you're not understanding me.

The existence or nonexistence of God has not been objectively proven. Any "logical" arguments you may have are tainted by your own personal bias. There are arguments for God that contain "logic", you subjectively deny that they are logical.

Regardless of how strongly you believe it, there is no objective proof that God does not exist; nor is there objective proof that he/she/it/they does/do.
False.

A logical argument is by definition not "personal[ly] bias[ed]." If you want my argument to be clearer, by all means ask me to make it clearer. But a simple fact cannot be personally biased. Logic is universal. Definitions are universal if agreed upon. The Law of Detachment is universal. The Law of Syllogism is universal.

The fact is, your argument is based on your opinion as is mine.
My opinion? My argument starts out only with universally accepted definitions.

Actually the conclusion is that we have differing opinions and that is all. Oh and you favor limiting people's ability to express themselves in public while I do not.

However, opinions can be correct or incorrect based on objective fact. And we communists value fact more than opinion.

And you favor limiting people's ability to silence those who express opinions that they know to be incorrect and useless.

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 21:43

This means you have no credible claim to support freedom.

So freedom is defined as "the right to express oneself in public regardless of what that may entail"?

Somehow I doubt it.

Um, yes. Freedom generally means "being allowed to do things".

There is no society where everyone has infinite freedom. The rapist and the one who is being raped both have theoretical freedoms: The freedom to rape and the freedom to not be raped. Whichever side you choose, you will be limiting someone's freedom.

So I could just as well say that you do not have any credible claim to support freedom because you do not support someone's freedom to kill religious bullshitters.

But here is the subtle difference which you do not grasp, causing you to reach for strawmen about rape: you actively seek to prohibit those freedoms that interfere with your opinion, whereas I actively seek to prohibit only those freedoms that clearly harm or violate the rights of other people.

You're not much different than some fundamentalist who is opposed to gay marriage, in fact you're simply a different side of the same coin: to you, "freedom" means people are free to live as they want so long as it conforms to your personal, subjective standards.

There is literally no difference between your philosophies. That's gotta suck.

My argument was not tainted by "personal experience" or a "subjective view of the world."

Yes it is, because you cannot prevent it. You're human.

Unless I'm arguing with a computer here? :huh:

A logical argument is by definition not "personal[ly] bias[ed]." If you want my argument to be clearer, by all means ask me to make it clearer. But a simple fact cannot be personally biased. Logic is universal. Definitions are universal if agreed upon. The Law of Detachment is universal. The Law of Syllogism is universal.

Logic may be objective, but as a human you're biased in what you think meets the rules of logic. There is no perfect logic nor rationality when humans are involved because we are inherently biased.

Yes, even you. I know you want to believe you're enlightened, but you're not. You're just another dumbass with an opinion, no different from me or anyone else.

I'm not interested in your argument about why God does not exist. It makes no difference. It's a lot like whether being gay is by choice or not. Who cares?

Why do you feel the need to decide for others whether God exists or not?

My opinion? My argument starts out only with universally accepted definitions.

They don't exist. If universally accepted definitions existed, would there be disagreement over anything?

However, opinions can be correct or incorrect based on objective fact. And we communists value fact more than opinion.

But the existence of God is not an objective fact, so in this case you're definitely valuing your opinion over fact.

And you favor limiting people's ability to silence those who express opinions that they know to be incorrect and useless.

Yes, and proudly so.

You know why?

Because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know what's best for everyone.

Direct question here, why do you assume you know what's best for everyone else?

RevMARKSman

30th November 2006, 22:27

Um, yes. Freedom generally means "being allowed to do things".

Yeah. So anyone along the street who sees a religious person preaching or whatnot would be allowed to punch their face in.

But here is the subtle difference which you do not grasp, causing you to reach for strawmen about rape: you actively seek to prohibit those freedoms that interfere with your opinion, whereas I actively seek to prohibit only those freedoms that clearly harm or violate the rights of other people.

But here is the not-so-subtle difference which you do not grasp, causing you to reach for some sort of morality: Humans define rights. The "rights" or "freedoms" of people are based on what kind of society they live in. I seek to prohibit those freedoms that interfere with knowledge, and expand those that interfere with religion.

You're not much different than some fundamentalist who is opposed to gay marriage, in fact you're simply a different side of the same coin: to you, "freedom" means people are free to live as they want so long as it conforms to your personal, subjective standards.

The thing is, a fundamentalist cannot justify his position with fact when challenged.

Yes it is, because you cannot prevent it. You're human.

So "my personal experience" taints an argument about the attributes of a theoretical divine being that was defined by someone else?

Logic may be objective, but as a human you're biased in what you think meets the rules of logic. There is no perfect logic nor rationality when humans are involved because we are inherently biased.

Humans have agreed upon several laws of logic guiding rational reasoning and arguments.

The conclusions of arguments following these laws have turned out to be physically true.

Therefore, arguments about theoretical objects following these laws will also turn out to be physically true. Logic cannot "tell the difference" between practical and theoretical entities.

Yes, even you. I know you want to believe you're enlightened, but you're not. You're just another dumbass with an opinion, no different from me or anyone else.

Somehow I fail to care what you say, because my opinion happens to be verified as fact.

Why do you feel the need to decide for others whether God exists or not?

Because I don't like things that are known to be objectively false. I don't like hearing them, seeing them, having them forced down my throat. It has been logically proven that God does not exist. Get over it!

They don't exist. If universally accepted definitions existed, would there be disagreement over anything?

Yes. Some people hold irrational beliefs. Some of them argue with those who hold rational positions, and some of them argue among themselves about who has the better belief.

Yes, and proudly so.

You know why?

Because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know what's best for everyone.

Direct question here, why do you assume you know what's best for everyone else?

Because I'm arrogant.

And on this particular issue (god), I know what's true.

manic expression

30th November 2006, 22:48

1. Explain why it's up to you to determine whether or not people's style of dress is "fine".

2. Explain in specific detail how you intend to enforce the above.

It's up to me because you're asking me. If you want to prove that my opinions are opinions, go ahead, but it has nothing to do with anything relevant. Ask a reasonable question or make a valid comment instead of screaming "you have opinions!" when we all know that already.

Anyway, it's up to society to decide. I would say that dress itself is personal, and therefore whatever the wearer wants is "fine". This would be "enforeced" by letting people dress the way they want to.

You can include this in #2, but explain in specific detail how "society would side with the girl". What actions would be taken? What would happen?

Society would side with the girl by allowing her to wear what she wants and telling the parents/relatives/imam that she can make her own decisions when it comes to her dress. SHE decides if she wants to dress modestly, and if so, how modestly.

Strawman. Stoning violates the rights of the other person. Expression in the form of speaking or writing does not.

If you're going to claim the right to not be offended, how can that be fairly enforced when two people will be offended by the opposite opinions?

Exactly. Some would say making a woman cover her entire body is violating her rights. That is understandable. Speaking about religion in public violates the secular nature of the community, which is beneficial to all.

What are you asking? Do you mean to say that the people who want to talk about religion will be offended? If so, those people can talk about religion in private, and they need to understand that society neither needs nor desires to hear their personal beliefs. I bet someone is offended that they can't talk to whomever they want about who they had sex with last and what position they like the best, or the last time they took a crap, but they can get over it.

I'm willing to bet that other people would disagree with your proclamation that you seriously understand the bible.

Explain why your understanding should be codified into law and their's should not.

They can disagree all they want, but it doesn't change reality.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Who are you to codify that 2+2=4?

Anyway, where did I say the position that "Christianity is illogical" (fact, not opinion, read the Bible and you'll know what I mean) would be codified in law? It wouldn't, Christianity would be restricted to personal life, just like every other religion. No favoritism.

No. My question here is, if it's your opinion that religion (which is an opinion) is wrong, and society should maximize limits on people's ability to express themselves religiously based on your opinions, are their any othe opininions that should be prohibited? Is it just you that gets to choose which opinions are to be restricted?

When did I say that religion is wrong? Why do you assume that I'm non-religious/atheist/agnostic? Since you keep assuming what I didn't say, let me give you a hint: I'm not non-religious/atheist/agnostic. Lastly, I'm not picking and choosing which opinions are restricted, I'm restricting one catagory of beliefs without favoritism. They're ALL restricted: if Christians can't preach in a park, neither can strong atheists.

But you have not answered my question as to why it should be up to you to determine what opinions can be made public.

See first response. It's my opinion that religious beliefs should be out of the public square and kept private. It's also the opinion of anyone who wants a better community (including the framers of the consitution).

There's no evidence that secularism guarantees stability. If there were, the communists on this board would get along great. They do not.

North Korea is secular, is it stable or friendly? No.

Views cannot be forced on other people. Again, if views are on television, you can turn the channel. If someone is talking about them on the sidewalk, you can ignore them.

You know what you sound like? You sound like the fools who think allowing gay marriage will make people gay.

The reason you cannot stop expression for the reason that people might be offended is because that cannot be applied fairly. The religious person is offended by your secularism. Fairness dictates that if you're going to ban speech because you're offended then so can he, doesn't it? How do we do that?

You can't, which leads us right back to our central question: why do you get to choose which speech is "right"?

Yes, there is. How many religious wars have been waged by/in secular communities? How many religious pogroms have been carried out in secular communities? Iraq was far, far, far (x2000) more stable and safe when religion was something people didn't bring out in the streets. India has benefited from a secular government, while Pakistan and Bangladesh have not.

North Korea is a ridiculous example. However, you are still incorrect, as it is stable, only stable in its unending problems (an understatement). Oh, and at the end of the day, leftists are in the same boat and we know that. However, we naturally disagree and argue and try to figure out the best option for things.

If someone comes up to you and starts showing you pictures of his/her favorite porn, are you just going to "ignore them"? Of course not. What people maturbate to is their own private matter, not mine; what people pray to is their own private matter, not mine.

Do you know what you sound like? Someone who can't comprehend the simplest argument, and someone who can't make one himself/herself. You sound pretty lost, especially with this pathetic remark. First of all, I don't recall saying that I feared that people would change beliefs too quickly or too frequently, that's not a concern. What IS a concern is that religious views in public are subject to criticism, something that I do not appreciate. Insulting someone else's beliefs is something that no one should tolerate, which is why it is best to keep them a personal matter. Furthermore, being gay is completely different from being religious or believing a certain thing. Can you really be so clueless as to think that you can genuinely change your sexuality as easily as what you believe? I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic.

See what I said about this before. ...those people can talk about religion in private, and they need to understand that society neither needs nor desires to hear their personal beliefs. I bet someone is offended that they can't talk to whomever they want about who they had sex with last and what position they like the best, or the last time they took a crap, but they can get over it. I am stopping religious expression because it is offensive to the community, and if someone is offended that they can't offend others, that's too bad. This is fair because it applies to everyone.

And again, I'm not picking and choosing, this is applied to all opinions on religion.

You do not desire to regulate differing opinions?

Then why do you seek to regulate the public expression of differing opinions?

If you didn't care about their opinions you wouldn't care about their expression, unless you have a severe willpower problem.

The point is you don't know what my religious opinions are, so you can't possibly say that I am only seeking to restrict what I disagree with. I seek the regulation of religious beliefs in public not because I disagree with them but because they have no place in a community's public sphere. I care about the effects of their expression, which are detrimental and unnecessary. It seems you have a severe problem with comprehending my arguments.

Such a freedom does not exist because it cannot exist for the reason I stated above: you have no right to not be offended because that right cannot be fairly protected.

You'd have to ban every single opinion.

I'd like to see you actually address this problem.

A freedom does exist (we create "freedom", contrary to Locke's debunked theories), for every opinion on the subject IS a personal matter. Because it is a personal matter, society should facilitate the restriction of these matters from public life. Religion is personal, and therefore it is unnecessary, unreasonable and unhelpful to have people offending one another on purely personal matters. On other opinions, however, they are valid to the public area and so the public discussion of these opinions, as well as the subsequent offensive discussion, is appropriate here. From this, people should be able to go to a park without being preached to.

If the preacher doesn't like it, that's too bad, but it has no bearing on this. Why? Because the subject of what he wants to preach has no place in public, and so he must keep his preaching to private life (in other words, he can do it at church or at his home or at others' homes).

Ignore it. It's not that hard. I do.

It's unacceptable, and so it should not be permitted. Religion in government is a recipe for disaster, and anyone who's studied an ounce of history can tell you that.

People ignore many things, it doesn't make it OK.

then get the first amendment repealed.

Religious harassment is not acceptable free speech, it is unnecessary and unreasonable and disruptive. Therefore, it should not be permitted.

By the way, you're telling a leftist that I should get rid of a bourgoisie document? We already know that, thanks.

The founding fathers were not fiercely secular and your statement that they were suggests you don't know anything about American history or you just like to make stuff up. Either way it seriously reduces your already flimsy credibility.

The founding fathers were deeply religious. However even they understood precisely what I am talking about and what you refuse to address: you cannot fairly stop the expression of one religion (opinion) because then you'd have to stop the expression of all others.

Deal with it.

Actually, they were. This topic actually came up in a Christian fellowship meeting that my friend brought me to, and the Christian history professor was very clear that the founding fathers were NOT religious, and as a matter of fact, quite the opposite. When Madison was asked why they didn't mention god in the Constitution, he scornfully replied "we forgot". This is very much an established fact of history, despite your ignorance.

Deal with it, indeed.

By limiting its expression in public? Yes or no?

If yes, then your answer to the first question is "yes".

By limiting it in public, you allow it to be free in private, where it belongs.

Yes.

So to you, the way to make people free is to limit their freedom in public?

Yes or no?

Right now you're answering "yes", which is completely absurd. Your argument makes no sense at all.

When public life is free of religion, people are free to pursue religion ON THEIR OWN in private. When public life is awash with religion, people have other beliefs thrown in their faces, people have other beliefs pressured upon them, people do not find their own answers to these questions. I seek a freedom from this detrimental situation. You seek to strengthen it.

No but it does limit their freedom to have sex in public, does it not?

Yes or no?

Yes, and that is the way it should be.

Which because of the gray area to which you admit, are made on subjective criteria.

There can be sufficient evidence and sufficient proof while also having a gray area. If we didn't accept this because of this gray area, we would not have any progress whatsoever. Your point is more than moot.

People are not prisoners....but they may not express themselves in public.

Contradiction. How do you not see it? Or are you just being disingenous?

There's no contradiction, only your refusal to see what I'm saying. People are not prisoners because everyone is allowed to believe what they want and practice what they want, in private. In public, everyone must recognize the benefit that secularism in the public square brings. That is not being a prisoner, that is being a member of a community. I'm not sure why you're incapable of grasping this.

Whether criticism is valid or not is again, highly subjective.

Why is your criticism valid and others' is not?

I skipped the rest because we are going around and around. Hopefully by now you are starting to get my point.

Criticism of other people's personal beliefs is unacceptable. I don't tell Christians that they blindly follow stupid bullsh*t to their face out of courtesy and the recognition of the personal nature of both parties' beliefs. Would you think it a good community if people were insulted and criticized for their personal and intimate beliefs? It isn't, which is why we need to keep them personal beliefs.

No, I grow tired of your evasion. Answer the question or, since you've slightly varied your response, answer why it's up to you to decide that certain dicussions are to be banished to the private realm by law.

Once you finally answer my question I shall answer yours.

I'm evading nothing, you simply refuse to understand what I'm saying. Religious beliefs are personal, and so religious discussions must be personal. I've outlined many reasons supporting this and I've made other arguments still.

And I have answered this tired and useless question of yours. Check my first response, check the others that I made to the same question.

That you refuse to answer my question, even though I have been answering your questions (and I can answer a question while still using more than 3 letters in my responses), is very ingenuine and unreasonable. Answer my question and stop evading while calling my answers "evasion", because it's not an effective argument.

uber-liberal

30th November 2006, 23:10

but it has to be 100% their choice and free from familial or external pressures.

You will not ever find that in the history of human existance. People are influenced by each other in every aspect of their lives. From cooking to clothes to which movie to watch, we are a social animal and thrive within the confines of social interaction and input.
Do you put the shoes you really like back because someone you don't like said they are cool?

If a girl feels that she does not want to wear something her parents want her to wear, society would side with the girl. If that same girl later decides she would like to wear it, society would recognize that it is HER personal decision.

Yes, it's an hypothetical, but still...
How can you argue for this kind of state interference into the lives of the average citizen? What if the girl wanted to wear a micro-mini, go-go boots and tube-top to school with no coat in February? Parents should stop such behavior. After all, if that child gets pneumonia, not only do the parents have a sick child on their hands (along with the guilt that comes with it), it's the parent's ass for not stopping them in the first place.
As we as individuals get older we should get more and more privelages and freedoms as we show that we can handle them. This is a tried and true method of child rearing. Societies determine an age as a cut-off for childhood and/or for an end to parental legal responsability. It's been agreed upon that this number usually coincides with a sufficient level of maturity and personal responsability. As my mother said numerous times, "When you're 18, you can live however you want; I'm no longer legally responsable then". Until such time as that age is reached, the child should be considered much like an apprentice to adult life. I also consider the ages 18-24 an extended residency of sorts.

If someone stones their gay neighbor, is that simply a "choice to follow religious dogma" which "society has no right...to regulate"? Of course not. Society CAN and HAS disallowed certain "expressions of faith", and that is more than justified.

By your argument, disallowing "undesired" displays of faith is equitable to personal freedom and social justice, right?
So here's my quary: What if the gay neighbor stoned the christians? Would that be acceptable or is that a violation of your Enforced Civility Statute?

It's the interpretation of anyone who seriously understands Christianity and the Bible. Anyone who thinks that Christianity is predominately based on logic is wrong, that's a fact that is no more "enforced on others" than saying that 2+2=4.

It's a futile argument. "Christianity is illogical". While the Bible has more historical fact than fables it has borrowed from more ancient faiths and strange shaman-esque visions, it does have a certain logic to it. Not one I particularly endorse, but to classify it as Wrong for the Masses? I'm not so sure that authoritative line in the sand should be crossed...

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with society,

WRONG!! YOU ARE WRONG, SIR!!! Should it have as much sway in politics, no way. Should bible-thumping soul solicitors knock on my door when I'm eating dinner? It would be advisable not to. But this statement is so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.
Without advocating its role, religions throughout the world have been the cornerstone of civilization through the entire historical record. To seperate the history of the people from the history of their religious beliefs is an impossible task. Religion is so interwoven into the fabric of society that their moralities are seen in our laws in EVERY nation.
In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to keep your shop open during daily prayer. In the United States you take an oath on the Bible when you are about to testify in court (even the word "testify" and its use in religious circles gives us some insight into this argument). You would probably be well-advised to stear clear of killing a bull in southern India, too. We don't tax churches here (Stateside), either. They are considered similar to a 501/c3 (non-profit or charitable organization) as far as income is determined. Society feels that they need their faiths to get along. It's really just bread and circuses, but let the babies have their bottle. It keeps society at an acceptable level of civil unrest. Nothing good happens with rapid-fire change. Just look at France, 1789, Haiti, 1996, or present day Liberia and Somalia.
Remember what your high school science teacher taught you; Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

...you don't know what my religious beliefs are, or if I lack them. Until you do, you cannot say I simply desire to regulate differing opinions, since you don't even know that I differ. Oh, and my opinions aren't relevant here.

Your opinions aren't relavent? Only the incorrect opinions of others? Check your ego at the door. If your wish for your argument against other's beliefs to be taken seriously you should at least defend your positin instead of attack attack attack. Tell us what you're FOR. We already know what you're against.

No, for people do not have freedom FROM religion if they desire it.

Yes they do, it's just not as absolute as it should be.
"...people are free to make their OWN decisions independent of others, which is the way it should be."
They can now. If you can't listen to religious dogma without doubt entering your mind, that's not religion's fault. If someone else has doubt about both religion and atheism in their mind, aren't you just as guilty of overzealous "endoctrinizing" as the christians for actively seeking their endorsement of your personal dogma as well?
Know yourself.

I want to make personal beliefs personal...

Redundency, party of one...

Why is it up to you to decide what is better for society?

Have you ever watched That 70's Show? There was an episode where the guys went to Canada to buy beer. When they were crossing back to the States, they were stopped because Fes didn't have an I.D.
They interrogated everyone, including Tommy Chong's character, Leo. When he was asked "What are you doing in Canada?", he responded, "What are YOU doin' in Canada, man?"
Sound farmiliar?

Also, do you have any proof of your subjectivist bullshit because as far as I'm aware there is only one objective, material reality and therefore only one right.

Einstein's theory of relativity. It's not just about physics. Einstein was a deeply spiritual person, and had a very philosophical outlook on life.
Take the railcar argument, from wikipedia:
"Let us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be travelling along the rails with a constant velocity v, and that a man traverses the length of the carriage in the direction of travel with a velocity w. How quickly or, in other words, with what velocity W does the man advance relative to the embankment during the process ? The only possible answer seems to result from the following consideration: If the man were to stand still for a second, he would advance relative to the embankment through a distance v equal numerically to the velocity of the carriage. As a consequence of his walking, however, he traverses an additional distance w relative to the carriage, and hence also relative to the embankment, in this second, the distance w being numerically equal to the velocity with which he is walking. Thus in total be covers the distance W=v+w relative to the embankment in the second considered."
The same can be said in reverse, walking away from the direction the train is heading. Instead of W=v+w, it would be W=v-w. The appearance of the world out the window will also reflect the change of velocity.
This applies to so much more that physics. Perceptions of right and wrong depend greatly on where you "stand" and which way you're headed.
There are also arguments to support this within the field of psychology, specifically within the Behaviorist and Sociocultural perspectives. On some level our reactions are purely Pavlovian in their origins, while others area direct result of our cultural upbringing and how that culture reacts and responds to other cultures/ideas, like M.H. Segall, P.R.Dasen, F.W. Berry and Y.H. Portinga suggested in their book "Human behavior in global perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology" (1990, Permagon Press).
Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud also did some work in this regard, re: the subconcious mind/psychoanalysis.
Basically, psychology is running rampant with theories and arguments to support this subjectivist bullshit. Only most of the world prefers to call it science.

t_wolves_fan

1st December 2006, 16:20

Anyway, it's up to society to decide (on dress). I would say that dress itself is personal, and therefore whatever the wearer wants is "fine". This would be "enforeced" by letting people dress the way they want to.

Not very specific. You said you'd prevent people from being "forced" to dress conservatively...how would it be determined if people were being "forced" and what would society do about it?

For instance, if a woman showed up dressed pretty modestly, would officials or society get to question why she dresses the way she does? If she says, "because my religion commands it."...is she being forced? What would be done?

Specifics.

Speaking about religion in public violates the secular nature of the community, which is beneficial to all.

Again this is only your opinion which you've already expressed, but you have no evidence to back it up.

I ask again, why does your desire to not be offended trump other people's rights to express themselves?

Is it because you're afraid of a free marketplace of ideas?

Anyway, where did I say the position that "Christianity is illogical" (fact, not opinion, read the Bible and you'll know what I mean) would be codified in law? It wouldn't, Christianity would be restricted to personal life, just like every other religion. No favoritism.

By law or by societal norm?

They're ALL restricted: if Christians can't preach in a park, neither can strong atheists.

So you favor maximizing restrictions.

If someone comes up to you and starts showing you pictures of his/her favorite porn, are you just going to "ignore them"?

Yes.

Do you know what you sound like? Someone who can't comprehend the simplest argument,

I comprehend your argument, I'm asking you the basis for it. All you have told me so far is that because you think religion should be private, expression of it in public should be restricted.

Your answer is stability. OK, now my next question is why stability trumps individual freedom and where the line is to be drawn. Certainly other opinions besides religion will offend people. Hell differing opinions between leftists offend one another...is the right to not be offended protected at that point? Why or why not? How?

I am stopping religious expression because it is offensive to the community, and if someone is offended that they can't offend others, that's too bad. This is fair because it applies to everyone.

And again, I'm not picking and choosing, this is applied to all opinions on religion.

Why does it apply only to religions?

The point is you don't know what my religious opinions are, so you can't possibly say that I am only seeking to restrict what I disagree with.

Sure I can. If you're religious the restriction on public expression would apply to you, would it not? If it wouldn't, how on earth is that fair?

I seek the regulation of religious beliefs in public not because I disagree with them but because they have no place in a community's public sphere. I care about the effects of their expression, which are detrimental and unnecessary. It seems you have a severe problem with comprehending my arguments.

Again you don't understand the basis of my question.

Even if you disagree with someone's opinion, what gives you the right to advocate that it be restricted?

Religion is personal, and therefore it is unnecessary, unreasonable and unhelpful to have people offending one another on purely personal matters. On other opinions, however, they are valid to the public area and so the public discussion of these opinions, as well as the subsequent offensive discussion, is appropriate here. From this, people should be able to go to a park without being preached to.

Problem: religious values drive opinions on other matters including public policy. Do you ban religion-based policy opinions? If so, how?

Religious harassment is not acceptable free speech, it is unnecessary and unreasonable and disruptive. Therefore, it should not be permitted.

Again on what authority do you claim this?

I'm not asking why you believe religious opinion should be banned from the public square. I'm asking why you claim the authority to ban opinions you do not like or the act of expression which you do not like.

As for your question,

Why is it up to you to decide what is better for society?

It isn't. That is why I don't try to ban opinions based on my opinion of them or their effects. The marketplace of ideas should be open, not limited to what I think is best.

Axel1917

1st December 2006, 17:12

Some interesting responses. None are surprsing, they're repeats of similar rants and raves I saw in my previous time here.

The more radical responses are hilarious in their hypocrisy and absurdity.

A world or society that a few of you clowns dream of, where parents are somehow forbidden from teaching their children anything, is not going to happen. Even the Soviet Union had churches and even the Pope visited Cuba. Fantasies like these are so unrealistic I have to wonder if a few of you weren't children enough to still be playing with plastic action figures in your sandbox this past summer.

How would they be forbidden from anything? That would literally mean never coming into contact with them, for the slightest contact could make some kind of influence. There are already limits to what parents can and can't do.

The USSR had churches. Stalin loved using them for his propaganda in some instances, like the bourgeoisie do. A healthy workers' state will have chruches and such, but they won't be manipulated by ruling classes and strata, used as pawns in their propaganda games, etc. I believe that when people have more control over their lives in socialist and communist society, they will naturally leave religion behind, as science progresses and they won't be left to despair and insecurity of the blind market forces of today.

We also come to the point that the masses need to be won over to go on the road to soicalist revolution. Marxists are atheists, yes, but they do not exclude religious people from struggle for a better world. Why would have Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky bothered writing, propagating, etc. if they were for forcefully getting rid of religion? They would not have done that work due to such a contradiction. Such an absurd view as to forcefully abolish it (forcefully going against religion also fuels fervernt religious support, makes martyrs, etc.) means to make some kind of nonsensical two phase thing. It would be telling the workers "Struggle for better wages and such, but don't you dare win! Not until everyone magically becomes atheist!" Such a view is nonsensical and anti-Marxist to the core. Does it really need to be mentioned that the Russian working class largely entered the scene for the first time as a religious protest, further provoked by the massacre of the protestors by Tzarist apparatus? Does it really need to be mentioned that a lot of religious Latinos are at the forefront of the class struggle in Mexico, hell, all over Latin America, where revolutionary flames are starting to engulf the continent?

I do not advocate the abolition of religion, just breaking the church away from capital (wasn't even Jesus said to advocate driving the moneychangers from the temple, or something like that?). Let them be maintained by their followers and not be used as tools for propaganda (I am not saying that all religoius people are indoctrinated by such things, but ruling strata try to use religion as propaganda). I believe that religion will naturally die out as socialism progresses, as things will progress and religion will be tolerated and not forced down peoples' throats by ruling classes and their states.

Your proclamations and prognostications are made more absurd by the fact that material conditions will never answer the questions religion seeks to answer, as just one poster astutely pointed out. There are plenty of religious rich people...does that not provide a clue to you that people of all socioeconomic classes have needs that can be met only through spiritual experiences such as religion? What do you plan to ban next, love? Love is just as irrational and destructive in an individual sense, and jails are full of people who killed or abused in the name of "love" regardless of socioeconomic status.

Religion is not restricted to one class. The rich that rule the US do use it as a tool of propaganda, although not everyone is indoctrinated by such propaganda. The class struggle is not a struggle against religion in general. It is a struggle of the proletariat with its natural allies (urban poor, peasantry, etc.), regardless of faith (or lack of faith), against exploiting bourgeoisie (and in the case of deformed workers' states that cannot be reformed over, against the Stalinist bureaucracy) regardless of their faith or lack of faith. The struggle is done on class lines, regardless of the faiths and the like of the classes.

Children (and that's what you are), research has shown that affirmations have positive effects on people's well-being. And that's what religion is. Plenty of studies have shown that in general people with medical problems recover quicker and more fully if they pray or do some other kind of affirmation than if they do not.

I wasn't aware that I was still a child at the age of 21.

People can also feel better around friends, loved ones, etc. What is your point, given that reading through Engels, it will be found that Marxism is not for forceful abolition of religion, but to break it away from capital and let the followers and the like take care of their churches, activities, etc.? I believe that a stage will be reached in socialism, if not later in communism, that with more control of their lives, people will not need religion to affirm such things.

Go on raging against the machine, advocating policies and solutions that won't work and that are blatantly as discriminatory and totalitarian as all the evils you imagine are inherent with religion.

Uh...okay..... :blink:

Shouldn't people get to decide for themselves if they will be spiritual or follow a religion?

Yes.

Should parents be allowed to teach their children religion and if not, what else are they not to teach their children and who are you to proclaim this?

To an extent (as in actually teaching Christianity, not the right-wing caricature of it, the doctrine of Mohammed, not Bin Laden, etc.). We also have the fact that to make life easier, the working day will eventually be reduced in socialist society (made possible by further development of the productive foces, as the capitalist advances made it possible to shorten the workday to 8 hours (or even less in some parts of Europe and the like). Children will also be more well rounded, as they will spend a bit of time around other children and educators (to reduce the burden of child-rearing on the shoulders of parents.). Without all kinds of Bin Laden, Pat Robertson, and other far-right falsifiers, masters of distortion, etc. of religion, it won't assume such extremist (I hate to use this word, in a way. I think that calling some things "extreme" in some cases is political profanity, as is "fascist" when used by some ultra-lefts, hippies, etc.) forms, as it won't be used as a tool of reactionary policies. I think that this more well rounded aspect will allow them to think for themselves better, and I don't think that religion will be used as a tool for mind control by some in socialism.

manic expression

1st December 2006, 18:01

No, I didn't say that. I said I would allow people to dress the way they wanted to. I also said that I would understand if a society wanted to limit such things to mandatory expressions, such as a Sikh turban. Such limits are being put into practice as we speak in Europe, if you care to look (although I doubt you do, since ignoring my answers is your best defense).

A society which understands that religion is a private matter is a better one for many reasons. I've outlined these reasons early and often, you just don't want to read them. However, I'll tell you, yet again. Secularism in public life decreases unnecessary conflict, it allows people to live with one another independent of their personal beliefs, it allows religion to be a private and individual pursuit which is more beneficial to the person who is trying to answer life's questions, it creates a community which is free from unhelpful influences in both private and public life.

On being offended, people should not have to bear other people's personal beliefs in public areas. We do the same thing for sex and other subjects which are best kept personal already, so this is hardly something new. Next, religious beliefs do not belong in public for the reasons I have given, including others.

And as I expected, you would bring up "freedom" yet again. Allowing people to preach in a park does not limit people's ability to discuss, research, consider, criticize and practice religion, it just ensures that it happens in private, where it should be. This is better for everyone as the religious can pursue their faith without unnecessary interruption, the non-religious can be non-religious and so on and so forth. I'm not afraid of creating a better, more harmonious community. Are you?

Whatever works. All religious beliefs, opinions on religion and the like would be restricted to personal life. If this is done by law, so be it. If this is done by social norms, so be it. However, there musn't be any favoritism or exceptions.

I favor making such restrictions applicable to everyone, which is logical and fair. Not doing so would not be "minimizing restrictions", it would be suppression of one set of beliefs in favor of another. Therefore, it has nothing to do with "maximizing" or "minimizing" as you wrongly suggest, it has everything to do with fair application.

That's you, or more importantly, you in this argument (hardly a reliable source). Most people, and I suspect you are included in this, would not accept such behavior for many reasons.

No, you seem unable to comprehend my point, since you keep asking the same questions when I keep giving the answers. I have given you many reasons why, and yet you skim over them and continue in your circle.

One of my answers is stability, so you are once again incorrect. However, "individual freedom" is not something which trumps the welfare of the community. A community should not give someone the right to needlessly and detrimentally throw their beliefs where they don't belong. Private things stay private, if it involves the community, it must be allowed in the community; likewise, if it has nothing to do with the community, it must be kept a personal matter. Keep religion to the church and the home.

That is one line that I have been citing for quite awhile. Political opinions have to do with the community, and so they must be permitted to be expressed. Religious beliefs do not have to do with the community and have everything to do with the individual (and family and religious circle).

In case you missed it:

Politics - Related to public matters
Religion - Related to private matters

First, it doesn't only apply to religions, since non-religious people would be expected to keep their opinions on the subject private as well. Next, see my user-friendly chart above to see why it applies to religions.

If I'm religious, the restriction applies to me. If I'm atheist, the restriction still applies. It would be inappropriate to, in public, say, "God cannot possibly exist because of x and y".

I've answered this question. The community would be reasonable in saying that religious opinions and opinions on religion are not to be discussed in public for the reasons I have given. There is nothing wrong with advocating this.

No, religiously-driven political opinions would be accepted, because those beliefs are formulated in private and are now applied to secular concerns. If someone has a political belief because of his/her faith, that is fine, as long as expression of the faith itself is not implicit or discreet.

Communities have the authority to make such decisions. Rights are defined by society (as outlined by Rousseau and Marx, who refuted Locke). In addition, why do you claim the authority to override a community's decision?

You didn't answer that question. You are trying to say your views are better than the community's on this issue. If the community decides that it would not like a "marketplace" of religious ideas, that is a reasonable and just decision for the reasons I have given. Actually, I am arguing that communities should make such a decision. It is to the benefit of all to keep religion personal, and so there is no valid reason to not do so.

uber-liberal

1st December 2006, 18:37

I'm not afraid of creating a better, more harmonious community. Are you?

No. Let me know when you actually have the idea crystalized instead of this tripe.

Disallowing public discussion of any kind is the death-nail to a democratic society. If you actually advocate that, what makes you better than Bush when he effectively eliminated habeus corpus for non-citizens? How are you doing anything different than what Stalin, or even Oliver "Lord Protector" Cromwell, for fuck's sake, did? If you got a law passed like that here in the States it would be the worst blow to freedom of speach since the Aliens and Seditions Act.

I wasn't aware that I was still a child at the age of 21.

Welcome to reality, boss. Just because you can vote and drink legaly doesn't make you an adult in the eyes of others.

And again with Marx and Engels. Look, there are plenty of really good books by really good authors. Don't let one skewed interpretation of the world shape your view of it alone. Marx and Engels were terribly intelligent and had many, many good ideas. They had bad ones, too. Other authors have good ideas. Explore and broaden your outlook. My preference is for John Steinbeck and Diogenes. Anyone who tells Alexander the Great "Move, you're in my way...", already has a set the size of Ayer's Rock. And the Travels with Charlie is one of the best Steinbeck novels/memoirs ever. Give 'em a try.

manic expression

1st December 2006, 18:39

Reply to uber-liberal

You will not ever find that in the history of human existance. People are influenced by each other in every aspect of their lives. From cooking to clothes to which movie to watch, we are a social animal and thrive within the confines of social interaction and input.
Do you put the shoes you really like back because someone you don't like said they are cool?

So people cannot make decisions by themselves? Of course they can. We may be influenced by others, but that does not mean we should respect someone's decision as a personal one. Allowing people to consider many possibilities privately is what allows people to determine their own answers. People may be influenced by society, but that is because society is pervasive in that matter. If religion is restricted to private life, people will have the ability to make independent decisions.

Yes, it's an hypothetical, but still...

Your example is far different for my own and has a completely different set of circumstances. First, the child's health is undeniably at stake; second, religion does not play the central role here. What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing.

Your "tried and true" method of rearing kids wouldn't be changed if society didn't want to change it. The only difference is that if a girl would rather not wear an article of her faith, she should be allowed to not wear it.

A gay person stoning a Christian would violate a ton of other statutes. As to my own, you didn't specify if s/he was explicity expressing her religion. If not, s/he's certainly stoning someone, which is unacceptable (why do I need to point this crap out to people?).

Have you even read it? Yes, it takes place in factual places, but so does Mission Impossible and X-Men. Christianity has borrowed more from Zoroastrianism, albiet indirectly, than from pagan religions. The theology is illogical by nature, which was my original point was that Christianity is illogical, something that you seem to not be addressing.

Religions have oftentimes guided societies, almost always for the worse. That's exactly what guided the crusader's sword to the middle east, for one example of many, many others.

Are you really arguing for a Saudi Arabian-style society? That's a good one. Anyway, religion does impact morality, of course, and this would not change at all. The formulation and practice of this faith would be done in private: at church, at temple, at home...not at the park. How would this change morality? It wouldn't. How would this change people's ability to take answers from religion? It wouldn't. Moreover, if killing a bull is not what the community wants to happen, it wouldn't happen. Is this explicitly religious? It comes from religion, but if a community simply decides no one is to slay a bull, that is a secular decision with religious influences.

Once again, people can have their "bottle", people can have their "bread and circuses", but that needs to happen in private, where it belongs. Just as circuses happen in tents, so too should religion happen only in churches, homes, temples and the like. Furthermore, rapid-fire change is a good thing. Emancipation was a "rapid-fire thing", so was the banning of child labour. Revolutionary change has been shown to work well in Cuba, Spain, Chiapas and elsewhere. When there is an action of injustice, there is inevitably a reaction against that, which is revolution.

Good job ignoring what I was saying, again. I could be devoutly religious, I could be an atheist, but what I am advocating would apply to me regardless. Therefore, my opinions on the subject of religion and divinity do not matter here. Next, I have been defending my opinion for the last few posts on this thread, as twolvesfan has been exclusively asking me questions and I've almost exclusively been refuting them. Next, I'm sure you can grasp the argument I'm making: I'm FOR secularism in the public square.

They can now. If you can't listen to religious dogma without doubt entering your mind, that's not religion's fault.

Wait, I thought you said we can't make our own decisions. Explain yourself and this apparent contradiction. Also, allowing preachers in public is to lack respect for the individual's ability to make a decision on religion for him/herself. Now, people can be subjected to undue expression of personal beliefs. Those beliefs must be personal, let people discuss them in private, let people decide on them in private. And by the way, you don't know what I doubt and what I believe, you're just making unfounded assumptions which don't help your argument.

Redundency, party of one...

I've been forced to repeat myself because twolvesfan asked the same question numerous times. Your cute little comments just underline your lack of understanding.

Sound farmiliar?

The reason I posed the question to him/her is because I wanted to show that s/he has the same authority as I do on the subject. Therefore, his/her point was shown to be invalid. Do you even have a clue as to methods of argumentation?

I know Einstein was spiritual (IIRC, this is why he doubted the theory himself). Your lecture/ramblings on the theory of relativity does absolutely nothing to help your argument. What the theory of relativity shows here is that there is an ultimate reality to every entity. Therefore, the community is justified in establishing secularism, for it recognizes the relativity of every member while recognizing the similarly relative nature of the community as a whole. At any rate, you failed to make a valid point whatsoever.

t_wolves_fan

1st December 2006, 18:51

No, I didn't say that. I said I would allow people to dress the way they wanted to. I also said that I would understand if a society wanted to limit such things to mandatory expressions, such as a Sikh turban. Such limits are being put into practice as we speak in Europe, if you care to look (although I doubt you do, since ignoring my answers is your best defense).

Fair enough. You applaud restrictions on expression. I know you've admitted to it, I just like to type it.

And as I expected, you would bring up "freedom" yet again. Allowing people to preach in a park does not limit people's ability to discuss, research, consider, criticize and practice religion, it just ensures that it happens in private, where it should be.

You're saying that limiting where people may discuss something doesn't limit their freedom to discuss it. That's contradictory and absurd.

This is better for everyone

I'll ask it again: why do you get to decide that?

Whatever works. All religious beliefs, opinions on religion and the like would be restricted to personal life. If this is done by law, so be it. If this is done by social norms, so be it. However, there musn't be any favoritism or exceptions.

Again, more restrictions = less freedom. You can't refute that.

I favor making such restrictions applicable to everyone, which is logical and fair. Not doing so would not be "minimizing restrictions", it would be suppression of one set of beliefs in favor of another.

On what planet does this make any sense whatsoever?

How does some nutjob standing in a park preaching "suppress" anyone's beliefs?

Therefore, it has nothing to do with "maximizing" or "minimizing" as you wrongly suggest, it has everything to do with fair application.

Incorrect.

Religious expression may happen in two places: public and private.

You'd eliminate one option, hence minimizing where it may be expressed.

You should be a lawyer or a politician with your transparently false justifications.

That's you, or more importantly, you in this argument (hardly a reliable source). Most people, and I suspect you are included in this, would not accept such behavior for many reasons.

Most people accept people expressing their religious faith in public. I have yet to see people in a park rise up spontaneously and kick out a preacher. They always just ignore him.

One of my answers is stability, so you are once again incorrect. However, "individual freedom" is not something which trumps the welfare of the community.

Wow.

So there you have it, the individual is but a cog in society isn't he or she.

That is one line that I have been citing for quite awhile. Political opinions have to do with the community, and so they must be permitted to be expressed. Religious beliefs do not have to do with the community and have everything to do with the individual (and family and religious circle).

In case you missed it:

Politics - Related to public matters
Religion - Related to private matters

Again, what about religion-based political opinions? You can try to separate the two but you're going to fail.

First, it doesn't only apply to religions, since non-religious people would be expected to keep their opinions on the subject private as well.

Guess we'll need bigger jails then.

Next, see my user-friendly chart above to see why it applies to religions.

Your chart does not account for the inevitable religious basis for many political opinions. It's like you're trying to say you want water but hydrogen should be kept out of it.

If I'm religious, the restriction applies to me. If I'm atheist, the restriction still applies. It would be inappropriate to, in public, say, "God cannot possibly exist because of x and y".

And off to jail you go. That's freedom.

I've answered this question. The community would be reasonable in saying that religious opinions and opinions on religion are not to be discussed in public for the reasons I have given. There is nothing wrong with advocating this.

If you believe that limiting freedom is not wrong, which apparently you do.

You cannot refute that your position limits freedom, can you.

No, religiously-driven political opinions would be accepted, because those beliefs are formulated in private and are now applied to secular concerns. If someone has a political belief because of his/her faith, that is fine, as long as expression of the faith itself is not implicit or discreet.

Uh huh. And what happens when during political debate one person asks another, "why do you believe that"? Is the religious person supposed to lie? Is he shut out of the debate when he tells the truth?

Communities have the authority to make such decisions.

Of course they do. You advocate they do so as much as possible, I advocate they do so as little as possible.

The difference comes down to that, doesn't it?

You didn't answer that question. You are trying to say your views are better than the community's on this issue. If the community decides that it would not like a "marketplace" of religious ideas, that is a reasonable and just decision for the reasons I have given. Actually, I am arguing that communities should make such a decision. It is to the benefit of all to keep religion personal, and so there is no valid reason to not do so.

Funny, if the community made a decision contrary to yours you'd argue against it, in effect you'd be arguing against the right of the community to set its own standards.

My argument is not that a community cannot set "standards" as you declare, it's that I hope they will keep to a minimum the number of restrictions on behavior because they never know when someone who believes the opposite of them might get into power and pull the same power trip on them.

Unlike you, I value the individual and his or her rights and abilities to run his or her own life more than I value enforcing what I think is best for the community because unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to think I'm enlightened enough to decide for others what is and is not good for them.

You are for less individual freedom, I am for more. That's what it boils down to.

manic expression

1st December 2006, 18:55

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 06:37 pm

I'm not afraid of creating a better, more harmonious community. Are you?

No. Let me know when you actually have the idea crystalized instead of this tripe.

Disallowing public discussion of any kind is the death-nail to a democratic society. If you actually advocate that, what makes you better than Bush when he effectively eliminated habeus corpus for non-citizens? How are you doing anything different than what Stalin, or even Oliver "Lord Protector" Cromwell, for fuck's sake, did? If you got a law passed like that here in the States it would be the worst blow to freedom of speach since the Aliens and Seditions Act.

I wasn't aware that I was still a child at the age of 21.

Welcome to reality, boss. Just because you can vote and drink legaly doesn't make you an adult in the eyes of others.

And again with Marx and Engels. Look, there are plenty of really good books by really good authors. Don't let one skewed interpretation of the world shape your view of it alone. Marx and Engels were terribly intelligent and had many, many good ideas. They had bad ones, too. Other authors have good ideas. Explore and broaden your outlook. My preference is for John Steinbeck and Diogenes. Anyone who tells Alexander the Great "Move, you're in my way...", already has a set the size of Ayer's Rock. And the Travels with Charlie is one of the best Steinbeck novels/memoirs ever. Give 'em a try.
I've laid out reasons why it is better for a community. Address those arguments, because you don't seem to have one of your own.

Disallowing public discussion of private beliefs is only right, and it is beneficial. It is different from political discussion because politics has a bearing on the community, while religion only has a bearing on the individual, the family and religious circles. Saying it would weaken "democracy" (which doesn't exist in the US) is ridiculous and misled, as it does nothing to weaken people's ability to discuss politics (and it does nothing to weaken people's ability to discuss religion, provided it is a private discussion and not in the halls of government or the public areas of society).

I'm not a child at the age of 21. In case you were wondering, I'm not 21. And try checking out context.

The Lockeian concept of "unalienable rights" is thoroughly disproven. Societies make their concepts of "freedom". Marx and Engels weren't the only ones to point this out, Rousseau was very much a proponent of this view as well.

And on other influences, rest assured that I read and treasure many writers outside of the Marxist tradition. Steinbeck's writing isn't for me, I have a short attention span. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not much of a reader anyway, and to be honest, I'm pretty bad at it; I enjoy the ideas that are in the writing, I don't enjoy the writing itself as much. Seriously though, don't fret over me not getting a wide range of views.

t_wolves_fan

1st December 2006, 19:10

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 01, 2006 06:55 pm
I've laid out reasons why it is better for a community.
It does not matter why you think it would make for a "better community".

You are trying to stop people from expressing some pretty important personal beliefs in the name of creating your version of a better society, regardless of the wishes of the people themselves or the practicality of actually enacting a successful prohibition.

The Lockeian concept of "unalienable rights" is thoroughly disproven. Societies make their concepts of "freedom".

You cannot prove or disprove a political philosophy.

Apparently the society you want to create contains only those freedoms you approve of.

uber-liberal

1st December 2006, 20:41

Swing and a miss, manic.

So people cannot make decisions by themselves? Of course they can. We may be influenced by others, but that does not mean we should respect someone's decision as a personal one. Allowing people to consider many possibilities privately is what allows people to determine their own answers. People may be influenced by society, but that is because society is pervasive in that matter. If religion is restricted to private life, people will have the ability to make independent decisions.

People are more than capable of coming to their own opinions. However, no one's idea is without influence. And again, if you can't make up your mind with PUBLIC discussion, you probably won't in private, either. Publicly expressing ideas are central to any truly free society, and the right to express your opinions openly is what gives us our freedom and THIS WEBSITE.

Have you even read it? Yes, it takes place in factual places, but so does Mission Impossible and X-Men. Christianity has borrowed more from Zoroastrianism, albiet indirectly, than from pagan religions. The theology is illogical by nature, which was my original point was that Christianity is illogical, something that you seem to not be addressing.

What, the Bible? Numerous times, from cover to cover. You?
ANTHROPOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, the Christian Bible, the Torah, the Koran and even the Apochyfal books are among some of the most historically acurate accounts of ancient times around, miraculous stories aside. Indeed, religious literature are often sought out for this reason. There have been scientifically proven accounts of the destruction of the jewish temple in Jerusalem and the existance of ancient countries of Israel and Judah. Scientists have been experimenting with the concept of how Moses split the Red Sea, but it is still highly theorhetical. And the account of the Exodus is factually based, as well, as are the destruction of Sodom and Ghomora (although the Bible's account of how is highly doubtful if not sen as outright ludicrous).

I've laid out reasons why it is better for a community. Address those arguments, because you don't seem to have one of your own.

Disallowing public discussion of private beliefs is only right, and it is beneficial.

I have my argument and have addressed your point. So, instead of coming back with your point and squalid proof, say something remotely accurate and even INTERESTING, you twit! Quit stalling and debate PUBLICLY your PRIVATE beliefs on religious issues, hypocrite.

Religions have oftentimes guided societies, almost always for the worse.
How was the Reinnesance a bad idea? Or Pythagerus, geometry, construction (as most first larger buildings of early civilization were either temples or a barracks), the written word, the number zero (Sanskrit text etched in stone, first recorded use of the number, used in a religious parable), farming... all have ancient religious contexts, none started without incorporating diety, usually for the benefit of mankind. Research, research, research.

The formulation and practice of this faith would be done in private: at church, at temple, at home...not at the park. How would this change morality? It wouldn't. How would this change people's ability to take answers from religion? It wouldn't. Moreover, if killing a bull is not what the community wants to happen, it wouldn't happen. Is this explicitly religious? It comes from religion, but if a community simply decides no one is to slay a bull, that is a secular decision with religious influences.

So you just can't say God had anything to do with it? Essentially lying in public and in the public forum. You're subborning purgery. We already have enough distrust of our officials in political offices, thank you. No need to feel the same about the rest of society as well.
Or they just say "Oh, i just thought of it", which violates the tennants of their faiths (i.e. lying, "render unto God that which is God's"), which most religious people won't tolerate. Nor would I. Society be damned, you can't disallow what people feel and for them to express themselves publicly. That is why there's a Gay Pride march in almost every major city in the U.S. That's also, as much as I don't like the message, the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan can do the same, as can the ACLU, MoveOn.org, the Shriners, the American Legion, Daughters of the Mayflower, the Cub Scouts, Rev. Jesse Jackson, anyone with the notion to. All you need to do is go to your city hall...
And attack the credibility of the examples if you want. I don't like all of them , either, but I will defend their right to speak freely. That IS unalienable. It's like your eyes; no one can make you NOT look at what's going on. If you can talk you can speak your mind and your heart.

Just as circuses happen in tents, so too should religion happen only in churches, homes, temples and the like

Churches are public displays of faith, ergo restricted, remember?

Furthermore, rapid-fire change is a good thing. Emancipation was a "rapid-fire thing", so was the banning of child labour. Revolutionary change has been shown to work well in Cuba, Spain, Chiapas and elsewhere. When there is an action of injustice, there is inevitably a reaction against that, which is revolution.

Wherever evil lurks, you'll find... THE SUPERSTATISTS!!!

Cuba: dirt poor and no one to help but Chavez, a man who has a really off understanding of how an economic infrastructure works.
Spain: CAPITALIST.
Chiapas: THAT one is making headlines. Boy, howdy...

And banning child labor took centuries, chief. And where do you think youth rebelions got started? It's been happening since children have been put in schools instaed of working on the farm with their families, which is where they were told they should be. While an education is THE single most important thing ANYONE can and should have, when child labor laws were first enforced the reaction was one of stark resistance. It was seen as a way of eroding the family unit. People put up STRONG resistance to taking their kids away for the day and teaching them things contrary to their beliefs. People STILL feel that way, or we wouldn't have homeschooling.
The industrial revolution didn't take kids from their mom's skirt and into the mines, it just made it more visible.

I could be devoutly religious, I could be an atheist, but what I am advocating would apply to me regardless. Therefore, my opinions on the subject of religion and divinity do not matter here.

"Ignore the man behind the curtain..."

Your ideal is correct because you can avoid discussing your beliefs? When you refuse to discuss your POV you add fuel to the fire that you're absolutely full of shit. you know that, right?
I bet you're some closet-case Russian Orthodox, or even a whirling Durvish. It's okay, come out of the closet, you confused christian, you...

Seriously, if you don't want to discuss your beliefs in public, that's your choice. It's not your choice, however, to hold others to the same standard because no one would buy into that limitation of their freedoms. It's unattainable because it's impractical.

Also, allowing preachers in public is to lack respect for the individual's ability to make a decision on religion for him/herself. Now, people can be subjected to undue expression of personal beliefs. Those beliefs must be personal, let people discuss them in private, let people decide on them in private.

The Bill of Religious Freedoms, passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786 and written by Thomas Jefferson, reads in part...

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

This from the man who wrote:
"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the
effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"

And also:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Trust me: you're no better that Jefferson. Sure the man had faults, but so do we all.

I've been forced to repeat myself because twolvesfan asked the same question numerous times. Your cute little comments just underline your lack of understanding.

Good God, get the net, chief. It was a joke. Are you really that void of compassion and basic humanity as to be so obtuse and callous?

What the theory of relativity shows here is that there is an ultimate reality to every entity. Therefore, the community is justified in establishing secularism, for it recognizes the relativity of every member while recognizing the similarly relative nature of the community as a whole. At any rate, you failed to make a valid point whatsoever.

INCORRECT, my naive one. What it shows here IMO is how reality is subjective depending on your POV. Therefore, society has no standing to ban public displays and discussions of faith because to do so is to try and alter other people's reality. If you don't want to listen, move on and quit bellyaching. No one cares to hear pessimism.

It is different from political discussion because politics has a bearing on the community, while religion only has a bearing on the individual, the family and religious circles.

Who do you think make up a community? Individuals, families and religious circles are a BIG part of it, boss. Try telling your neighbor he can't discuss whatever he wants and if they cherich their freedom in the skightest, I guarantee they'll be at the sporting goods store in a matter of minutes.

I'm not a child at the age of 21.

Oh, how cute... Look, the baby said something...
hahahahahaha!

Again, relativity.

manic expression

1st December 2006, 21:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 07:10 pm
It does not matter why you think it would make for a "better community".

You are trying to stop people from expressing some pretty important personal beliefs in the name of creating your version of a better society, regardless of the wishes of the people themselves or the practicality of actually enacting a successful prohibition.

You refuse to deal with my reasons, and so you are effectively ignoring my argument. Stop, because you are discrediting yourself and exposing your lack of a point.

Directly address the reasons I gave. Until then, you have nothing.

You cannot prove or disprove a political philosophy.

Apparently the society you want to create contains only those freedoms you approve of.

Yes, you can. Locke said that property was natural to humans. By Marx's time, this was known to be incorrect. Locke works off of the idea of a state of nature, and if he is incorrect in this, his entire theory falls apart. Curiously, he is incorrect. Secondly, what do you base these "freedoms" on? You have not established this whatsoever. Also, why is the freedom to disrupt a community and disrespect people more important than the freedom to live in a community without unnecessary religious divisions?

uber-liberal

1st December 2006, 21:42

Directly address the reasons I gave. Until then, you have nothing.

He did; he said they are irrelevant, essentially. What's good for the goose...

Yes, you can. Locke said that property was natural to humans. By Marx's time, this was known to be incorrect. Locke works off of the idea of a state of nature, and if he is incorrect in this, his entire theory falls apart. Curiously, he is incorrect. Secondly, what do you base these "freedoms" on? You have not established this whatsoever. Also, why is the freedom to disrupt a community and disrespect people more important than the freedom to live in a community without unnecessary religious divisions?

Locke's theory is sound, if only his verbage was better...

Humans are territorial, much like most mammals and all other primates. I believe this is what he ment by "property", in the subtext. Most modern sociologists would agree with this statement, while most poli-sci types would refute it. There is no concensus, ergo, no proof for or against of a majorly compelling degree.
Secondly, these freedoms are established within the laws that already exist and the interpretation of them the society chooses is correct.
And the freedom to disrupt people's lives and freedoms of speach and religion outway your view of true secularism because society deems it so. Again, the goose and the gander.

manic expression

1st December 2006, 22:10

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 08:41 pm
People are more than capable of coming to their own opinions. However, no one's idea is without influence. And again, if you can't make up your mind with PUBLIC discussion, you probably won't in private, either. Publicly expressing ideas are central to any truly free society, and the right to express your opinions openly is what gives us our freedom and THIS WEBSITE.

Did I say they could not take influences in private? Of coure they could. There is no restriction on influences, only unnecessary expression of them in inappropriate places. Public discussion of private beliefs is not desirable at all. First, it is disruptive and unnecessary divisive. Second, answers on religion are for individuals to answer, for themselves. Making religion a private matter would facilitate this effectively.

Public discussion impedes the individual from making his/her own conclusions. A society should be free of this.

I ask you, what do you base this idea of a "truly free society" on? Answer that question directly, please. People should not be "free" to throw their personal beliefs where they do not belong. Therefore, it is reasonable to restrict them from doing so. I've given reasons on WHY they are personal, so you should address them directly (check my other posts).

What, the Bible? Numerous times, from cover to cover. You?
ANTHROPOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, the Christian Bible, the Torah, the Koran and even the Apochyfal books are among some of the most historically acurate accounts of ancient times around, miraculous stories aside.

That's priceless. "...miraculous stories aside." I do believe you made my argument for me. So is the Bible more accurate than Polybius? Give me a break. This may be news to you, but I know that the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the existence of states in the region and other things are true. However, Mission Impossible and X-Men take place in real places, and are based on real occurances, too. It doesn't mean they're remotely accurate about anything more than that. Oh, and the whole escape from Egypt thing was probably a case of Ramses II letting them go due to political concerns.

I have my argument and have addressed your point. So, instead of coming back with your point and squalid proof, say something remotely accurate and even INTERESTING, you twit! Quit stalling and debate PUBLICLY your PRIVATE beliefs on religious issues, hypocrite.

It's not my fault you can't amount a valid argument. At any rate, where did you refute that secularism in the public sphere is better for the community? Refuting you doesn't make me a "twit". Oh, and nice try with the contradiction, because to get religion to be private, I have to debate it first, so there's no contradiction here. Good attempt, anyway.

How was the Reinnesance a bad idea? Or Pythagerus, geometry, construction (as most first larger buildings of early civilization were either temples or a barracks), the written word, the number zero (Sanskrit text etched in stone, first recorded use of the number, used in a religious parable), farming... all have ancient religious contexts, none started without incorporating diety, usually for the benefit of mankind. Research, research, research.

The Renaissance was the process of coming out of the religious-induced dark ages. However, during this time saw some of the most disgusting acts of all time (New World, for starters), much of them religiously motivated. The battles between Protestants and Catholics saw bloodshed for no real reason whatsoever, and you're telling me that it was a "good idea"? Are you really saying that farming wouldn't have happened without religion being preached in a public place? People could make religious parables and share them with others on a large scale with no problem. For instance, people could write poems of devotion, publish them and then distribute them throughout their religious community or other religious communities. People would still go to church if they wanted to, people would still build temples. This only takes all that benefit and keeps it in a place closer to the individual, all the while ensuring the benefit of secularism in the public square.

So you just can't say God had anything to do with it? Essentially lying in public and in the public forum. You're subborning purgery. We already have enough distrust of our officials in political offices, thank you. No need to feel the same about the rest of society as well.

You can make any sort of religiously-inspired argument without telling everyone that it was inspired by x or y or z. No one would ask if you were influenced by religion, because it wouldn't be a concern. If it does come to that, then the individual can merely say, that his/her personal beliefs influenced him/her, and that would be the end of it.

I know I asked this before, but why are these rights "unalienable"? More importantly, why are they more important than the rights of the community?

Churches are public displays of faith, ergo restricted, remember?

A building isn't "public". A place of worship is private, end of story.

This is not about your misled views on Cuba, Spain, Venezuela or any other country. Please stay on topic (and Spain collectivised during the civil war, which is what I was referring to).

Your ideal is correct because you can avoid discussing your beliefs? When you refuse to discuss your POV you add fuel to the fire that you're absolutely full of shit. you know that, right?
I bet you're some closet-case Russian Orthodox, or even a whirling Durvish. It's okay, come out of the closet, you confused christian, you...

The reason my religious beliefs don't have anything to do with this is because no matter what my beliefs are, I wouldn't be expressing them in public. That's what you're not getting: that this isn't about the KIND of belief, it's the recognition that these sorts of beliefs and opinions are personal and should be treated as such.

And no, I'm not Christian or Sufi, but you can keep guessing.

I'm only holding myself to the same standards that I would ask of others. Do as I do.

Great. Jefferson didn't do what I'm suggesting. I'm really glad you told us all, because I wasn't sure of it myself (sarcasm, if you didn't notice).

I'm not expecting humor so I may not recognize a joke when I see it. No big deal.

The theory establishes relativity, but it also establishes that with each relative entity, there is an ultimate reality. Society, being such an entity, can define its own reality, as well as recognize the relative reality of each member.

Individuals and families make up a community, no one's denying that. However, when religious circles have sway in that community, there is a recipe for trouble. IMO, religious circles are great, but they have their place, and that is dealing with matters of religion, not with public matters.

Wait, my neighbor doesn't agree with me? How could he not agree with me, manic expression, radical leftist?! Moral of the comment: I know he doesn't agree with me, you don't have to tell me.

I do hope that's a joke.

manic expression

1st December 2006, 22:11

By the way, I'm not going to be able to reply very much over the weekend. I'll try to get back to your responses later.

uber-liberal

1st December 2006, 22:51

Public discussion impedes the individual from making his/her own conclusions. A society should be free of this.

On the contrary, publi discussion allows all ideas to be put on the table, for all to paruse as they see fit. Narrowing this view to include only what you see as appropriate is limiting the populace to YOUR OPINIONS. That's not how a democracy works. That's Stalinism.

I ask you, what do you base this idea of a "truly free society" on? Answer that question directly, please. People should not be "free" to throw their personal beliefs where they do not belong.

Your opinion of where they belong and the rest of societies ideas need to beOPENLY DISCUSSED in order to reach a consensus, right? Wouldn't it stand to reason that religion as a subject would be part of it?
And a truly free society doesn't allow for interference with its citizens' rights, like litter, throwing stones through windows, or limiting the rights to discuss openly the benefits of religion in a public forum. That, sir, is an example freedom.

That's priceless. "...miraculous stories aside." I do believe you made my argument for me. So is the Bible more accurate than Polybius? Give me a break. This may be news to you, but I know that the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the existence of states in the region and other things are true. However, Mission Impossible and X-Men take place in real places, and are based on real occurances, too. It doesn't mean they're remotely accurate about anything more than that. Oh, and the whole escape from Egypt thing was probably a case of Ramses II letting them go due to political concerns.

Take an anthro class, for Christ sake (pun!!)
The political ramifications of Jesus were based on fact, as well, like Roman occupation and the Jewish status quo of getting along to get along. And Ramses II... possibly, but not able to be proven either way definitively yet.
and your comics... let's talk as adults. Leave childish things aside, if you don't mind. That was my point: the bible is an invaluable historical reference even if it has outlived it's use as a religious book of parables.

At any rate, where did you refute that secularism in the public sphere is better for the community?

"And again, if you can't make up your mind with PUBLIC discussion, you probably won't in private, either. Publicly expressing ideas are central to any truly free society, and the right to express your opinions openly is what gives us our freedom and THIS WEBSITE."

The Renaissance was the process of coming out of the religious-induced dark ages. However, during this time saw some of the most disgusting acts of all time (New World, for starters), much of them religiously motivated. The battles between Protestants and Catholics saw bloodshed for no real reason whatsoever, and you're telling me that it was a "good idea"? Are you really saying that farming wouldn't have happened without religion being preached in a public place? People could make religious parables and share them with others on a large scale with no problem. For instance, people could write poems of devotion, publish them and then distribute them throughout their religious community or other religious communities. People would still go to church if they wanted to, people would still build temples. This only takes all that benefit and keeps it in a place closer to the individual, all the while ensuring the benefit of secularism in the public square.

More of mankind's scientific advancements, by statistics and sheer numbers alone, came from the Renaissance than from any other time in history. While the barbarity is on it's own merits a blight on humanity, you can't blame religion for people's choice to act on superstitions and myth.
And farming, and most other early advancements, wouldn't have happened without the public influence of a clergyman/shaman/cleric. Their role was central to the development of society. It's not anymore, but limiting people's ability to use religious influence in the public sphere is not only impossible but foolish.
And churches have crosses outside to indicate what they are. That's a public display of faith, no? Your idea only confines religious dogma in a corale, where the thought police can easily round them up when necessary.
Goddamnit, you're supporting a Jerry Brown "California, Uber Alles" world and you don't even realize it.

The reason my religious beliefs don't have anything to do with this is because no matter what my beliefs are, I wouldn't be expressing them in public. That's what you're not getting: that this isn't about the KIND of belief, it's the recognition that these sorts of beliefs and opinions are personal and should be treated as such.

And no, I'm not Christian or Sufi, but you can keep guessing.

I'm only holding myself to the same standards that I would ask of others. Do as I do.

Great. Jefferson didn't do what I'm suggesting. I'm really glad you told us all, because I wasn't sure of it myself (sarcasm, if you didn't notice).

I'm not expecting humor so I may not recognize a joke when I see it. No big deal.

The theory establishes relativity, but it also establishes that with each relative entity, there is an ultimate reality. Society, being such an entity, can define its own reality, as well as recognize the relative reality of each member.

Individuals and families make up a community, no one's denying that. However, when religious circles have sway in that community, there is a recipe for trouble. IMO, religious circles are great, but they have their place, and that is dealing with matters of religion, not with public matters.

Wait, my neighbor doesn't agree with me? How could he not agree with me, manic expression, radical leftist?! Moral of the comment: I know he doesn't agree with me, you don't have to tell me.

I do hope that's a joke.

Read Jeffderson's quotes again. He agreed with you phylisophically, but still thought that everyone should be allowed to discuss ALL ideas openly. After all, politics are personal opinions, too.
And the ultimate reality of relativism is redefinable depending upon the individual. and, just because society CAN exclude some ideas doesn't mean it should.
And when you disenfranchise religious circles from even a small voice within the community, you disenfranchise the citizenry. Your community becomes a place of unrest. Public discussion is VITAL. God shouldn't be mandating which traffic lights get fixed first, no, but if someone wants to pray before city council meetings and asks the town to join in if they so choose, who the hell are you to stop them?
And everyone knows your neighbor disagrees with you. Don't go pissing people off by limiting their freedom to express ideas you disagree with.
And no, the only joke is your ideals.

Axel1917

2nd December 2006, 00:50

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 06:37 pm

I wasn't aware that I was still a child at the age of 21.

Welcome to reality, boss. Just because you can vote and drink legaly doesn't make you an adult in the eyes of others.

And again with Marx and Engels. Look, there are plenty of really good books by really good authors. Don't let one skewed interpretation of the world shape your view of it alone. Marx and Engels were terribly intelligent and had many, many good ideas. They had bad ones, too. Other authors have good ideas. Explore and broaden your outlook. My preference is for John Steinbeck and Diogenes. Anyone who tells Alexander the Great "Move, you're in my way...", already has a set the size of Ayer's Rock. And the Travels with Charlie is one of the best Steinbeck novels/memoirs ever. Give 'em a try.
I am utterly unimpressed by this display of immaturity. You merely made some age remark, for the most part, instead of actually addressing my points.

Oh, and by the way, bourgoeis sources indeed make valuable admissions here and there. You baselessly assumed that Marx and Engels are the only two authors I read from.

manic expression

2nd December 2006, 03:49

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 01, 2006 10:51 pm
On the contrary, publi discussion allows all ideas to be put on the table, for all to paruse as they see fit. Narrowing this view to include only what you see as appropriate is limiting the populace to YOUR OPINIONS. That's not how a democracy works. That's Stalinism.

Public discussion of public issues is great. However, religious beliefs are not public issues. Furthermore, public discussion allows people to unnecessarily and negatively throw criticisms, derisions, judgments and more where they don't belong.

Once again, you are wrong if you say I am limiting anything to "my opinions". No one would be permitted to speak their opinions of religion, not me, not anyone else. You, on the other hand, are imposing the unreasonable division of society, which is as detrimental as it is shallow-minded. Leave religion to the churches and homes.

Stalinism? You have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

Your opinion of where they belong and the rest of societies ideas need to beOPENLY DISCUSSED in order to reach a consensus, right? Wouldn't it stand to reason that religion as a subject would be part of it?
And a truly free society doesn't allow for interference with its citizens' rights, like litter, throwing stones through windows, or limiting the rights to discuss openly the benefits of religion in a public forum. That, sir, is an example freedom.

That very opinion pertains to the community, and so it is only right that it would be discussed openly in the community. Religious beliefs do not pertain to the community. I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say here, please expand and explain.

You blatantly ignored my DIRECT question. Answer the question:

On what do you base this idea of a "free" society?

Until you answer this, your talk of "interference with citizens' rights" has no basis and less validity. Answer the question.

Furthermore, societies should ensure that individuals have the opportunity to pursue religion (or non-religion) by themselves and without the undue meddling of others. Is being able to discuss personal matters in a public forum reasonable? Most people would not accept the discussion of sex or other private matters in a public forum, and rightfully so.

Again, answer the question on rights.

Take an anthro class, for Christ sake (pun!!)
The political ramifications of Jesus were based on fact, as well, like Roman occupation and the Jewish status quo of getting along to get along. And Ramses II... possibly, but not able to be proven either way definitively yet.
and your comics... let's talk as adults. Leave childish things aside, if you don't mind. That was my point: the bible is an invaluable historical reference even if it has outlived it's use as a religious book of parables.

The Roman occupation or the Jewish status quo means nothing in this context. I could say James Dean beat up a bunch of Romans in Judea at the same time, but it wouldn't be accurate just because Romans were occupying Judea.

Ramses II letting the Jews leave is far more feasible and has far more support than the "wrath of god" allowing the Jews to escape.

It really isn't an accurate historical document, as people in the late Roman Empire observed that Christians changed their scriptures all the time to try to compensate for the inaccuracies (Celsus is one of them IIRC).

"And again, if you can't make up your mind with PUBLIC discussion, you probably won't in private, either. Publicly expressing ideas are central to any truly free society, and the right to express your opinions openly is what gives us our freedom and THIS WEBSITE."

No, I said better for the community. You cited individual ability to make decisions and "freedom". What I am looking for is an argument that religious friction benefits the community as a whole.

More of mankind's scientific advancements, by statistics and sheer numbers alone, came from the Renaissance than from any other time in history. While the barbarity is on it's own merits a blight on humanity, you can't blame religion for people's choice to act on superstitions and myth.
And farming, and most other early advancements, wouldn't have happened without the public influence of a clergyman/shaman/cleric. Their role was central to the development of society. It's not anymore, but limiting people's ability to use religious influence in the public sphere is not only impossible but foolish.
And churches have crosses outside to indicate what they are. That's a public display of faith, no? Your idea only confines religious dogma in a corale, where the thought police can easily round them up when necessary.
Goddamnit, you're supporting a Jerry Brown "California, Uber Alles" world and you don't even realize it.

The industrial revolution saw more advancement than the Renaissance. Furthermore, China and the Middle East, not to mention the Incas, were ahead of the Europeans in many ways. I'm not blaming religion for problems, I'm blaming the fact that people didn't have the sense to keep them private matters.

Agriculture developed because of religion? Not quite, just because the societies embraced religion doesn't mean religion was the central part of it. Please back up what you're saying.

A huge cross outside of a church could be considered too much. Crosses which genuinely have to do with the decoration (even gothic churches don't really have big crosses) should be fine.

Read Jeffderson's quotes again. He agreed with you phylisophically, but still thought that everyone should be allowed to discuss ALL ideas openly. After all, politics are personal opinions, too.
And the ultimate reality of relativism is redefinable depending upon the individual. and, just because society CAN exclude some ideas doesn't mean it should.
And when you disenfranchise religious circles from even a small voice within the community, you disenfranchise the citizenry. Your community becomes a place of unrest. Public discussion is VITAL. God shouldn't be mandating which traffic lights get fixed first, no, but if someone wants to pray before city council meetings and asks the town to join in if they so choose, who the hell are you to stop them?
And everyone knows your neighbor disagrees with you. Don't go pissing people off by limiting their freedom to express ideas you disagree with.
And no, the only joke is your ideals.

How did he agree with me? He shares my religious beliefs? What are you trying to prove? Be more specific. And no, politics have to do with the community, while religious beliefs have to do with the individual (as well as the family and religious circles).

Because each individual's reality can be defined, they should define it. I'm not excluding any beliefs, as all beliefs, religious or atheist or otherwise, would be kept private.

Religous circles should be kept away from political power. Are you really suggesting that religious groups should be powerful? That brings nothing but endless trouble for everyone. The community would not impede their existence whatsoever, they would not restrict their practices. That is completely respectful of those circles. Public discussion is vital when it comes to public matters, and religious beliefs are not public matters. The community would stop the person from praying before a meeting. Who are they to disregard it?

Again, what are you basing this "freedom" on? And at any rate, they have all the ability in the world to pursue whatever they wish...in private. Keep religion where it belongs and everyone benefits.