Brainstorm

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If religion were eradicable, it would be gone by now, I think. Some of the most frightening efforts to get rid of religion (Stalinist
Russia, China, North Korea) have all been abject failures.

That being said, I think a more reasonable goal would be to confine the influence of religious groups to religious spheres. You want to pray? By all means, pray your empty little head off. But you've got no power at all to force others to pray, or to exact punishment for their refusal to do so.

Boru

[Excited Penguin]

Nowhere did I say I disagreed or that there weren't hateful ass passages in the Bible.

I'm asking you to provide an example of such a teaching occurring. Otherwise we're just talking about starting a shit storm over something that isn't happening.

Are you asking so you can understand whether my thinking would allign with yours on this? I can't find any on short notice, but I've read passages in the past that call you, as a believer, to do something violent in this life. I'm not talking merely about "hateful passages". I'm talking about actual incitement to violence and I think people shouldn't be allowed to preach that kind of thing. You're splitting hairs for some reason. Are you saying there aren't any passages that go like this: " You should kill your wife for reason x, if y happens". Wouldn't you agree that no one should be allowed to preach something like that?

[emjay]

I'm against Christianity to the extent that it tries to meddle in the affairs of non-believers, who by it's own definitions should be destined for hell anyway simply for not believing. So the problem I have with it is where some Christians seem to feel responsible for all 'sin' that happens in the world, not just their own. Ie does my being gay make any difference to their salvation? It shouldn't do... I am responsible for what I do and they are responsible for what they do... but it seems to be the case that by merely facilitating, enabling, or allowing something they deem to be a sin to be committed by others, they somehow take responsibility for that sin and feel it will stand against them on judgement day. So that's what I object to in Christianity. If it were the case that Christians concerned themselves only with their own personal responsibility for sin and did not feel the need to spread the word and/or otherwise meddle "for our own good" and their sense of shared culpability, then I'd have no problem with the religion at all.

[Excited Penguin]

Of course I agree we should only care about religion as far as it tries to impose its exclusive values on others, as far as the law goes. But we should also care whether our fellow humans believe stupid shit or not, even if we lived in a fully secular world, where religion didn't impose itself on our laws. We have to live side by side with these people, and even if we completely got religion out of the public sphere, they would still be stupid because of it. We ought to try and help them with that. That's why I call myself an antitheist. How is that so hard to grasp, I don't get it.

[Excited Penguin]

And by the way, if you object to any god's character, or to any religious idea at all, then you're an antitheist, whether you like it or not.

[Joods]

Because some people don't want that sort of help. Besides, if we do that, we would be no better than those who try to push their thoughts onto others.

[Excited Penguin]

Because some people don't want that sort of hep. Besides, if we do that, we would be no better than those who try to push their thoughts onto others.

Of course you'd be better. What are you even talking about. One is about educating and instilling reason and logic, the other is about indoctrinating.

[Excited Penguin]

Because some people don't want that sort of help. 

I'm not saying you should force them in any way. But to do as much as possible to expose religion for what it is and to promote reason is something each of us should do, if we care about the future at all.

Besides, we already enforce education to a certain extent. How is that any different exactly?

[Joods]

But to the person you are trying to "educate", just in the same way thata person doesn't want someone's religion pushedon them, maybe said religious person feels the same way about being "educated".

Person A has the opinion of X.
Person B has the opinion of Z.
Person B feels they are right and person A is wrong, so person B decides to "educate" person A.
Person A feels they are right and person B is wrong, so person A decides to "educate" person B.

Excluding personal opinion, how does one determine who is right and who is wrong?
Furthermore, how does one get educated so that their own thoughts aren't infringed upon?

I'm not advocating religion here, but I am saying that freedom to think what one wants has always been a natural given right. No one can ever take your private thoughts away.

[Excited Penguin]

But to the person you are trying to "educate", just in the same way thata person doesn't want someone's religion pushedon them, maybe said religious person feels the same way about being "educated".

Person A has the opinion of X.
Person B has the opinion of Z.
Person B feels they are right and person A is wrong, so person B decides to "educate" person A.
Person A feels they are right and person B is wrong, so person A decides to "educate" person B.

Excluding personal opinion, how does one determine who is right and who is wrong?
Furthermore, how does one get educated so that their own thoughts aren't infringed upon?

I think your objection is invalid. If we really thought like that, anarchy would be ubiquitous. As it is, there are laws. We agree to live according to them or we face consequences. This is something we collectively agree to so as to live well. I'm advocating perfecting those laws so as to collectively live in a better world. How do we do that? By discussing ideas, by promoting them and by ultimately (if indirectly) converting them into laws.

Now I'm proposing we discuss about religion. To what extent is it bad? How do we deal with it to the extent that it is bad?

I'm not advocating religion here, but I am saying that freedom to think what one wants gas always been a natural given right. No one can ever take your private thoughts away.

Why even call it a right, if you couldn't possibly infringe upon it in any way?