Brainstorm

[SteelCurtain]

---

Do you mean the very idea of a stance about these issues is harmful? Or just the religious stance?

To be clear - stance saying that x should be deprived of rights cause I find them horrible or they are against my religion is something that I find abhorrent. I couldn't care less if someone likes or dislike abortion for example, but why others should be able to strip her of right to choose?

I think it's worthwhile to remember that there are people who wish to force acceptance of homosexuality or women's reproductive rights onto others just the same. I don't think that's right, either. Forced adherence to any viewpoint, whether we agree with it or not, is fascism, and not how societies progress.

Acceptance while would be good as what we are talking about isn't something bad or harmful isn't necessary. It will be enough if women had right to choose abortion and homosexuals had right to marriage. Enemies of such can cry about godlessness of it how long they want.

How would getting rid of religion not rob freedoms or force your opinions/beliefs onto others?

Education and improving life conditions would go a long way to eradicating religion same as learning of critical thinking I would say. No legislation is necessary. Also I don't think that eliminating of religion is possible.

Also, I have spoken to atheists on this very forum who are against abortion and/or marriage equality.

It's more than strange for me. Universe never cease to wonder one could say.

If you think no atheists wish to rob people of their freedoms to make their own choices and have their own beliefs, simply read back through this thread where I have interacted with Kitan and you will see that some atheists do want to push their beliefs on others.

I think there are such atheists.

---

Ah. Then we agree.

[Excited Penguin]

Who gets to decide which religious ideas should be banned, EP?

No one in particular, all of us together. That's how democracy works, SC. I am for democracy, if that wasn't clear.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Ahhh....well then I think we are mostly in agreement.

Possible.

Education and improving life conditions to filter out as much of the harmful religion as we can, but eradicating religion altogether....its just not going to happen.

Yes, it's not going to happen. Sadly.

[Losty]

Ahhh....well then I think we are mostly in agreement.

Possible.

Education and improving life conditions to filter out as much of the harmful religion as we can, but eradicating religion altogether....its just not going to happen.

Yes, it's not going to happen. Sadly.

If it ever did happen, over many years and solely through education (not indoctrination) and improved living conditions would be the only path to getting rid of religion that I would support.

[Excited Penguin]

I am not against religion as a principle. I am not dogmatically against it, so to speak. I am only against certain aspects of it, and to certain degrees depending on what I'm talking about at any given moment. I am against religious hate speech - I think it should be legally disallowed. But everything else, is up for discussion, and I think I have good enough reasons to convince anyone who needs convincing that religion is inherently bad, even dismissing the violent aspect of it.

[SteelCurtain]

Who gets to decide which religious ideas should be banned, EP?

No one in particular, all of us together. That's how democracy works, SC. I am for democracy, if that wasn't clear.

That's how strict democracy works, and that's also why no successful nation on Earth employs a strict democratic system.

If the majority gets to decide what's banned, atheists are fucked. In America, if the majority got to decide, we'd still have different water fountains and schools for black people.

It would still be illegal to be gay in most parts of the American South. Segregated housing would still be more rampant than it is in the major cities and the south.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Possible.


Yes, it's not going to happen. Sadly.

If it ever did happen, over many years and solely through education (not indoctrination) and improved living conditions would be the only path to getting rid of religion that I would support.

I wouldn't cry if religion were to be banned. Though apart from it being impossible it may have results that legislators had not in mind, i.e. rekindling of religious fervor.

[SteelCurtain]

I wouldn't cry if religion were to be banned. Though apart from it being impossible it may have results that legislators had not in mind, i.e. rekindling of religious fervor.

Exactly. You want the third Great Awakening? Try 'banning' certain religious thoughts and ideas. That's a way to mobilize these knuckleheads with assault rifles. Y'allQaeda for real.

[Excited Penguin]

I don't think we can overcome religion altogether, exactly, not until we can cure all forms of insanity, at least.

But we can educate people and help them look at it all from a scientific/rational perspective. And that's the work of antitheists, not atheists. An atheist who claims is not antitheist is simply a coward, in my opinion, a particularly deluded person(morally), or simply uninformed as to the harm religion does and can do. Believing false things as a rule and unwilling to revise those beliefs in face of new evidence/sound reasoning is harmful. Ok? It is harmful. You cannot tell me with a straight face that it isn't.

[Losty]

If it ever did happen, over many years and solely through education (not indoctrination) and improved living conditions would be the only path to getting rid of religion that I would support.

I wouldn't cry if religion were to be banned. Though apart from it being impossible it may have results that legislators had not in mind, i.e. rekindling of religious fervor.

I wouldn't cry, but I would protest. I can't think of anything more important than the freedom of thought. Every person in the world should be granted mental autonomy.