(February 1, 2016 at 7:45 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 7:34 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I'm the one being dense... Seriously?!

You just admitted that it does involve you. You can't have it both ways. As long as that person's personal belief is wrong you have to do everything within your power to correct it. It's your unspoken duty as a citizen of the world. It certainly does involve you, especially when so many people hold incorrect beliefs. Wherever it gets as clear-cut as you're trying to make it seem you act accordingly. Otherwise, you rely upon your power of persuasion to change people's minds about it, within the confines of the law and what is ethically acceptable.

I was conceding that point for argument's sake. Come, now.

I don't have a duty to correct anyone. In fact, I consider it my duty as a citizen of a pluralistic society to protect the rights of people to do, think, and believe as they wish so long as it doesn't harm others in a real way.  My duty, as I perceive it, is the exact opposite of your duty, as you perceive it.

Then you are certainly confused about it, from where I'm standing.

You were conceding the point for argument's sake? Really? So you don't believe we're all connected? I urge you to not concede anything merely for argument's sake. It will inevitably come up again, as it just did.

Pluralistic society my ass. The world is not so simple as you're trying to convey it. Certain beliefs and practices may not be obviously harmful, but if you inquire into their nature and think about their long term effect you might significantly change your stance on that. But that would require you to be a little more nuanced, something you seem to be incapable of being. I'll admonish you for it all the same.

(February 1, 2016 at 6:59 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 6:54 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: From your point of view. From the Christian's point of view, it is the exact opposite.

Yes, I know. And that is unfortunate. We ought to find a way to deal with that.

Gee, that's the same sort of thinking that the Nazis had regarding Jews. We see how well that worked out. There are still Jewish people on this earth today. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you are thinking about killing millions of people, but to eradicate the erroneous (in your opinion) thinking of religious people, something drastic needs to be done. I've yet to see your suggestions. Merely educating them is too general of an answer.

Look, I get what you're aiming for: total abolishment of all religions, but honestly, it's never going to happen. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. People are born and people die every day. You can't reach them all and there isn't time for that. If it were possible, don't you think it would have successfully happened already? Certainly you aren't the first individual to have this thought. (Again, the Nazis). I guarantee you won't be the last. The Nazis tried and failed miserably to eradicate an entire group of people. As a result, several Nations stood together and fought against their dictatorial thinking. Look who won.

As long as people can think freely for themselves, and they aren't personally having a direct impact on your ability to think and do what you want then, live and let live. If a group of people want to gather and do what they, collectively as a group, believe is right, as long as they aren't demanding that it become law and they aren't harming others or requiring that others follow their beliefs, then they aren't having an impact on anyone else's life. AND, if it happens to be a religious group who spends every Saturday helping out at a homeless shelter after a prayer meeting, who is anyone to say they are wrong in their beliefs?

If you're talking about creating laws that prohibit religious people from assembling or preaching or indoctrinating, then you are in violation of a persons rights (at least here in the US).

Let's suppose for a second, that this is what you're suggesting and let's suppose, for argument sake that such laws were enacted. Just because there are laws on the books saying certain things are illegal, doesn't stop them from happening.
For example:
Kids are, to use your word, educated in school about violence, yet there are still gangs and violence running rampant in this country. If society has done what it can to educate and teach the young kids about right and wrong, and there is STILL violence, what makes anyone think that teaching reason against religion is going to be any different? Furthermore, how exactly would one go about enforcing the law and what sort of punishment do you feel would fit the crime?

Let us look at the belief that a life starts at the moment of conception. Apparently harmless idea until something like Stem cell research comes along. Not so harmless anymore. I'm not sure what's the current situation regarding that, but it's a good example to convey what I mean. Homophobia is another when talking about gay marriage.

Having unjustifiable beliefs about the world will inevitably bite you in the ass, eventually, as well as cause problems for everyone else. All we can do is try and mitigate that to the best of our abilities. Keeping your head down and letting people believe whatever they want for unjustifiable reasons is not the way to do it.

(February 1, 2016 at 7:53 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 6:59 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Yes, I know. And that is unfortunate. We ought to find a way to deal with that.

Gee, that's the same sort of thinking that the Nazis had regarding Jews. We see how well that worked out. There are still Jewish people on this earth today. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you are thinking about killing millions of people, but to eradicate the erroneous (in your opinion) thinking of religious people, something drastic needs to be done. I've yet to see your suggestions. Merely educating them is too general of an answer.

Look, I get what you're aiming for: total abolishment of all religions, but honestly, it's never going to happen. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. People are born and people die every day. You can't reach them all and there isn't time for that. If it were possible, don't you think it would have successfully happened already? Certainly you aren't the first individual to have this thought. (Again, the Nazis). I guarantee you won't be the last. The Nazis tried and failed miserably to eradicate an entire group of people.  As a result, several Nations stood together and fought against their dictatorial thinking. Look who won.

As long as people can think freely for themselves, and they aren't personally having a direct impact on your ability to think and do what you want then, live and let live. If a group of people want to gather and do what they, collectively as a group, believe is right, as long as they aren't demanding that it become law and they aren't harming others or requiring that others follow their beliefs, then they aren't having an impact on anyone else's life. AND, if it happens to be a religious group who spends every Saturday helping out at a homeless shelter after a prayer meeting, who is anyone to say they are wrong in their beliefs?

If you're talking about creating laws that prohibit religious people from assembling or preaching or indoctrinating, then you are in violation of a persons rights (at least here in the US).

Let's suppose for a second, that this is what you're suggesting and let's suppose, for argument sake that such laws were enacted.  Just because there are laws on the books saying certain things are illegal, doesn't stop them from happening.
For example:
Kids are, to use your word, educated in school about violence, yet there are still gangs and violence running rampant in this country. If society has done what it can to educate and teach the young kids about right and wrong, and there is STILL violence, what makes anyone think that teaching reason against religion is going to be any different? Furthermore, how exactly would one go about enforcing the law and what sort of punishment do you feel would fit the crime?

We have to persuade people to drop their irrational beliefs. It's our only hope. The world did change. Religious beliefs changed. A lot changed in the last couple of centuries. Progress is real on this front. Let's not throw our hands up when there are still mountains to be climbed ahead.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:48 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Those ideas, though, are taken care of by societies. Faggots should be gassed are heard in YouTube comment sections, and from the most marginalized people in society. That's why they're angry.

Depend on society. And idea of gassing the faggots is something that I heard even at University, so it's hardly blabbering of most marginalized and uneducated idiots.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:48 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: They're not real threats. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say truly hateful and disgusting things.

They aren't real threats? I see nothing unreal in them; shitstains uttering such could be only waiting for opportunity and I have too much doubts about Poland juridical system and populace in general to deem them not real threats.

Among our politicians we have people* saying that homosexuality is socially useless as every society is interested in prolonging nation (or should I say Volk?) existence. Our former president is afraid of gays domination in public life. It's fascist rhetoric, but roots of it are in church teaching. Church also have much on it's conscience - archbishop Józef Michalik, former chief of the Polish Episcopal Conference said that children are to blame for being molested as they in search of love cling to priests. In such climate no threat made by however primitive or marginalized but church backed (or using church rhetoric) person should be counted as not real, especially in light of equaling homosexuality with pedophilia.

*It's especially interesting if one know that Krystyna Pawłowicz, person speaking this does not have children. Same as leader of her party.

(February 1, 2016 at 7:39 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I'm sure we, as self-identified rationalists, also have some beliefs that need challenging(or at least some of us do, even if maybe to a lesser extent than a religious person would). Smoking is a good example of that. But there are countless others.

I have plenty of delusions - it's a side effect of how the emotional brain works - some of which I'm more mindful of than others, and some of which I use rational thinking to challenge and overcome and some of which I don't. But I only challenge them when I'm ready to, and that readiness comes from within. So I don't identify as a rationalist like Spock... I wouldn't want to be that because the emotional brain is just as beautiful in my eyes as the logical brain... and the two parts complement each other perfectly. So rationality is a means to correct delusions and without it we'd be confined to living them unchanged, as is presumably the case in the animal kingdom. But I don't see rationality alone as the be all and end all of human existence.

(February 1, 2016 at 8:07 am)Emjay Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 7:39 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I'm sure we, as self-identified rationalists, also have some beliefs that need challenging(or at least some of us do, even if maybe to a lesser extent than a religious person would). Smoking is a good example of that. But there are countless others.

I have plenty of delusions - it's a side effect of how the emotional brain works - some of which I'm more mindful of than others, and some of which I use rational thinking to challenge and overcome and some of which I don't. But I only challenge them when I'm ready to, and that readiness comes from within. So I don't identify as a rationalist like Spock... I wouldn't want to be that because the emotional brain is just as beautiful in my eyes as the logical brain... and the two parts complement each other perfectly. So rationality is a means to correct delusions and without it we'd be confined to living them unchanged, as is presumably the case in the animal kingdom. But I don't see rationality alone as the be all and end all of human existence.

Here's the definition I was using:

rationalist - someone who believes that ideas and actions should be based on practical reasons and knowledge, rather than on emotions or religious beliefs

Do you still not consider yourself a rationalist, even by that definition? Do you perhaps think some ideas and actions should be based on emotions or religious beliefs? Could you give me any examples of such?

"Banning religion" is simply impossible. You can't stop people thinking irrational thoughts, even if they don't share them with anyone. They could come up with their own religion in their head.

The most you can do in practical terms is to try and stop organised religion. I think this is a bad idea, while they're not actively hurting anyone or receiving special treatment, but even if you tried to you'd come up against the definition of what is and isn't organised religion. Would informal gatherings of people sharing ideas count? It's bordering on thought police.

(February 1, 2016 at 8:13 am)robvalue Wrote: "Banning religion" is simply impossible. You can't stop people thinking irrational thoughts, even if they don't share them with anyone. They could come up with their own religion in their head.

The most you can do in practical terms is to try and stop organised religion. I think this is a bad idea, while they're not actively hurting anyone or receiving special treatment, but even if you tried to you'd come up against the definition of what is and isn't organised religion. Would informal gatherings of people sharing ideas count? It's bordering on thought police.

Rather, I would advocate persuasion as a tool to make people shed their religios beliefs on their own.

Some people refuse to be persuaded. Have you seen some of the threads (and the arguments that ensued) started by theists on here?

No one single person or idea is going to convince everyone to agree and it is irrational to think otherwise.