One of my problems

[Eilonnwy]

What about it? That's what my 'job' example was for. Are you saying that churches should be forgiven
for the atrocities because they do good?

No, because the churches didn't commit the atrocities, the people did. Let me give you an example.

The current economic crisis is the result of bad banking practices that stemmed from continuous deregulation. Your solution to this problem would be to get rid of the banks! But wait, we need the banks. People rely on them, it's a driving force in our economic society. The real solution is regulation. Prevent banks from doing risky business like derivatives. Prosecute criminals like Bernie Madoff and the Goldman Sachs for abusing the system and knowingly selling bad stocks, but still give people who use the banks for good the ability to do so.

It's the same for churches. Make them pay taxes, make them accountable under the law, don't give religious exemptions, ridicule churches that promote terrible ideas on the media, etc... etc...But let people who use churches as a means for charity, community service, and self help continue to do so.

What is a troll? I am new to online forums like I said in my intro...now I'm getting frustrated because the last place I tried to talk about this stuff everyone got pissed off at me and called me a 'troll', and wouldn't talk to me about it. I'm just trying to understand and direct or calm the rage inside of me. I came here to get help with that. Maybe I havent thought enough about it, maybe I'm being foolish, but I'm not getting mad at you about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I dont think that's fair to say, but maybe you are right I'm sorry if that sounded absurd. I guess the point I was trying to make is that Freedom has many definitions. I mean to be completely free, we would have do be allowed to do anything, even murder right? So obviously govt has to control and and put at least some boundaries on freedom. I think that it is possible to extend those boundaries around organised religion. Is that so radical?

No, but your solution to a perceived problem is to take away the person's right to use the car, because cars are dangerous and people die in them every day. Get it?

I propose regulating the churches better and holding them accountable. Compare that to road laws, I propose speed limits and traffic tickets to regulate car use and make it safe.

You propose abolishing churches. Compare that to road laws, you propose abolishing the use of cars all together.

Also, I don't care if they behave or think exactly like me. I don't think about myself at all when I'm contemplating this. I think about the victims of religious oppression.

But, do you think that balance you desire is possible? I feel like theists ultimately wont accept a balance.

Your making a Nirvana fallacy, you think there's a perfect solution, when there just isn't.

The ideas that are taught on the internet were most likely originally taught to the teachers in a mosque, were they not? Are you asking me if I don't care about what's fair? If so, yes I do care. But not about being fair to organized theists. And no it's not because I don't want to worry, I think thats misrepresenting what I said. I want to worry about what is fair. I want to spread the practise of logic and reason. I want everyone to be free. But I think that theists have proven to us that they don't deserve these natural feelings of the human condition.

Why should we try to be fair to them when they aren't to everyone us?

What you have said here is very problematic and prejudiced. You're making sweeping generalizations of theists as whole. Newsflash, not all theists are evil. Not all theists commit atrocities. You're making them guilty by association. Your blaming the thing that some evil people use as the cause for the evil. You're making a bunch of logical fallacies here. You're confusing causation with correlation, sweeping generalizations, arguing an absurd slippery slope, and resorting to tu quoque.

You're fractally wrong. I don't care if you feel that theists treat you no better, that doesn't give you the right to trample on the basic freedoms that you also enjoy.

No, I don't think I am. Maybe it wasn't clear or you are assuming. I think the ills of religion are partly to blame on the church, not fully. But this thread is about the church only.

In any case I and others have explained ad nauseum why your suggestion is absurd.

Look, I've been brooding about this among many many ideas all alone for sometime now, so you'll have to forgive me if I seem rash or foolsih. I assure that my intentions are to follow reason and logic, and I am here to work that out with you. I hope you can have patience with me.

This is what happens when you bring your opinions out into the public arena. They get criticized. This is not a bad thing, it's important to receive criticism to understand why something your believe may be wrong. Refer to this thread for a point made about arguing outside your bubble.

I can have patience with you if you listen and really think about what you're saying. You have made some concessions in a couple cases that what you said wasn't the best, which is good.

If you can, I will just say this;

My argument can be summed up as "Freedom in its purest form is not condusive to civilization, therefore it is natural that as wo/man organises s/he puts boundaries on freedom. This binding of natural freedom can and should be extended to those that do evil and endager others. This is called Law. Religion has shown in the past and even today that without a proper binding on its freedom, it will commit atrocities along side good deeds. Churches are the public face of religion and give it public legitimacy. They also are the means to which money and power is legitimately transferred throughout the religious systems. Therefore, as a conduit for a system that produces evil and endagers others, they should be banned. "

So, now if you are still with me and want to continue, I would sincerely love to know where I went wrong in this argument or what fallacy I committed.

No. Your assertion is absurd.

Knives are used for cutting food, building things, opening things, etc.. But knives also kill people. They will continue to kill people. Shall we ban knives?

And you want fallacies, here you go:
Proof by example. You have stated that the church has committed atrocities, therefore all religions and all churches committ atrocities and must be banned. No. That's not true. It's so blatantly not true.

You confuse correlation with causation. Religions that have committed atrocities do have churches, but that doesn't mean the churches are the cause of those atrocities.

Fallacy of single cause, you imply church is the sole cause of the atrocities without even considering that basically evil people simply used the church, or happen to be related to the church.

You have committed an association fallacy by simply asserting that because churches are associated with religious atrocities, all churches are evil.

There's a bit of a Genetic fallacy, by referring to the past ills of the churches without recognizing that churches have changed and can continue to change.

And lastly, two wrongs make a right.. You claim religions are unfair, therefore it's okay for you to be unfair to religions.

I think I've covered most if not all the fallacies.