It's all bad bits El D.

Your goat religion sounds pleasant. Now point to an existing religion that is as benign?

Why? Why should I do that? This is exactly my point. You're saying we should ban religion because all the ones that exist do all these bad things. Firstly, I bet there are existing religions that are as benign, but are simply not as mainstream. Secondly, it's irrelevant whether there are or aren't. Tell me why you should be able to ban people from private worship/beliefs if their actions don't affect others.

Well, I declare that my goat-worshipping religion exists. I'm the first member, and I just founded it, right now. It's called Billygoatism. Now tell me why it should be banned?

---

(October 16, 2011 at 8:23 am)Epimethean Wrote: " ... to influence other areas of society ... is not an essential product of religion."

History does not corroborate this, ElD. How would you seek to keep it from occurring again without sanctions which would then take massive resources in court as processes of appeals waged war with law?

Do you know how many religions there are in the world? And how many of them get any kind of coverage? 20 or so? And think how many people become disillusioned with the aggressive nature of those religions. Do you really think there are no religions whatsoever that simply promote private worship and tolerance of others?

Once again I ask you on what basis would you seek to ban such a religion? It doesn't matter at all what current large religions do, and I can't believe I'm having to point this out. For guys who deal constantly with people bringing logical fallacies in here, this is really no better.

1. I was wearing red socks on 9/11
2. Red socks caused 9/11
3. Ban red socks

(October 16, 2011 at 8:38 am)ElDinero Wrote: Tell me why you should be able to ban people from private worship/beliefs if their actions don't affect others.

There's the rub. I point to those that do, and not just in practice but on a fundamental level, and say we dustbin them. As long as your goat doesn't have a chosen people, as long as it isn't punishing people, as long as it doesn't make commandments (for example charity cannot be a commandment), as long as your goat doesn't receive special protection by law, etc etc etc. It's entirely conceivable that we could imagine up some pleasant religion El D. We just don't seem to be in the habit of doing so. I don't feel like we need to ban ridiculous beliefs, we can educate things like that clear out of existence as long as they don't have the kind of indoctrination and support network that has been built by organized religion. What happens when one of your goat followers tells everyone that the goat spoke to him, and that the goat said that unbelivers were somehow inferior. What other fun things then have all the justification human beings require? Secularism with a goat as an idol isn't exactly what I'm talking about, is it?

I'm not saying that we should ban religion because religious people do bad things. I'm plainly lumping religion in as a bad thing. It's amusing to see the thought crime defense on this issue when we find one of the very earliest mentions of thought crimes happily nestled within the pages of scripture.

Yes, we've covered this. You're pointing to large examples of things that exist currently and saying that as a result, everybody must pay the penalty, even if their religion does not share these methods. I've already told you I'm the first member of Billygoatism. It complies with all of your criteria.

Can't do it that way, ElD. We are looking at the history of the big religions. Little religions grow into big ones, and in order to grow, they tend to take on these negative aspects. If you want to ban the public expression of religion, and while you are doing that, ban all proselytism, you'll get closer to the right answer, but to trust a religion to do the right thing simply because it is now small and innocuous is a form of naivete which history has shown to be dangerous.

(October 15, 2011 at 1:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They are both based on a perceived ethnic or cosmic superiority of a specific peoples over the "other".

They are both grounded in ignorance of the natural world.

They both leverage cultural norms to perpetuate their dirty little practices.

They are both used to oppress whatever people have been designated as "other".

They are both supported by pisspoor justification that amounts to little more than fear-mongering.

They are both used as a justification for crimes against humanity.

They both deserve to be dustbinned.

Does it meet my criteria? If it does, then it should be banned.

I'm not arguing that we should ban some as yet unidentified and unrealized religion, I'm talking about the ones that exist.

You do realize that Billgoatism will never gain traction, largely because it's missing those elements yes? There has to be a carrot to gain, or a hot poker to avoid, when dealing with the divine. It's not by chance or providence that the religions that we have are in the state they are in. They are reflections of our own minds. Either that's okay with us, or it isn't. To me, it isn't. I don't have any confidence that we could educate our way out of this mess because it isn't education that it relies on. The religions we currently have are all psychological predators. They play us against ourselves and each other. They've been refined for thousands of years to be more effective at exactly that. The harmless granny who doesn't believe in any of the nasty shit, who drops her coin into the collection plate, pays for the church that the racial holy war douche attends (or is the minister of). I can't help but see this as unmitigated evil. I'm not even a big good/evil guy, so this one is pretty much out of the ballpark for me.

(October 16, 2011 at 8:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: What happens when one of your goat followers tells everyone that the goat spoke to him, and that the goat said that unbelivers were somehow inferior. What other fun things then have all the justification human beings require?

Then that's what we fight against. Not the private worship and beliefs themselves. When those beliefs begin dictating actions that affect others.

(October 16, 2011 at 8:49 am)Epimethean Wrote: Can't do it that way, ElD. We are looking at the history of the big religions. Little religions grow into big ones, and in order to grow, they tend to take on these negative aspects.

Tend to. Not 'must do'.

Let me ask you guys something, then, since you fancy policing this. We'll use the latest new craze, Billygoatism, as an example. Say for example, religion gets banned. I refuse to denounce my beliefs, and I continue exactly as I was, worshipping a goat and lying face down every Tuesday and Friday. You get tipped off that I'm doing this and raid my house, finding plenty of goat-worshipping contraband and evidence that I am practising a religion. What would you tell me is the reason you are arresting me? Don't say 'practising religion'.

It's thoughtcrime, guys, no matter what reason you give for it. You're trying to police the private beliefs and actions of others.

---

(October 16, 2011 at 8:57 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not arguing that we should ban some as yet unidentified and unrealized religion, I'm talking about the ones that exist.

Right, then we're not even arguing about the same thing. I am talking about religion in principle.

Ah, but we stop at your door, my friend. That is the chief issue. Keep religion private and your Billygoatism is safe.

Let me add, when you challenge my assertion regarding tendencies of religion, on what grounds are you doing so? Certainly not scientific ones, as the evidence for what drives religions and what makes them thrive is clear.

There are benign forms of cancer, too; we sometimes remove those when they get too big as well, despite the adjective applied to them.

How would you keep your religion private and unobtrusive to the public?

So you don't want to ban religion then...

Is this not the exact point I've been making the whole time?

You're not down with thought crimes, neither am I. Another reason I'm in favor of banning religion, shits all about thought crimes.

(There are plenty of things El D, and we probably agree completely here, that work in principle. It's when they make it to practice that things tend to snowball. Demanding that I only deal with the principle is akin to telling someone on the politics forums that they cannot refer to any instances where communism has been attempted, only the principles. I'm not sure that it works that way.)