The War Against Christianity

[Lonewulf]

yeah but several thousand miles away your 1st amendment allows us to get that impression......its a media portrayal, and no doubt an incorrect one.

I'm pretty sure you mean second amendment. First is free speech and that the government will pass no law regarding religion. The second is the right to the militia and (as is often translated), the right of the people to possess firearms for self defense.

Either way, this is not the thread to discuss gun control or gun rights issues. However, I am an advocate of gun rights. I feel that taking firearms away from the individual merely ensures that they are powerless, and that a powerless people are one that is not difficult to control. A government should be afraid of it's people and all that.

 

[biomorph]

I'm pretty sure you mean second amendment. First is free speech and that the government will pass no law regarding religion.

well striking out that second bit wouldn't be so hurtful now would it?

The second is the right to the militia and (as is often translated), the right of the people to possess firearms for self defense.

Either way, this is not the thread to discuss gun control or gun rights issues. However, I am an advocate of gun rights. I feel that taking firearms away from the individual merely ensures that they are powerless, and that a powerless people are one that is not difficult to control. A government should be afraid of it's people and all that.

ah! you are so right there, i agree totally with your opinion on this. and no i'm not, but maybe ought to be , up on your legislation. but i live here. across the pond. Ok i could do more research. i will actually. it'l do me good, and stop me winding up the good US citizens of this world , of which there are many and varied.

 

[tsg]

well striking out that second bit wouldn't be so hurtful now would it?

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.

 

[kmortis]

1/Heavy taxation

Why heavy? I agree with taxation, at least for the non-charitable portions (e.g soup kitchens).

2/Classifiy places of worship as business.

Again, for the day-to-day operations. Worship is a service just like carpet cleaning, just much less tangible.

3/Make new church buildings subject to strict planning controls, and difficult to build through red tape.

Um...no. Now you're just getting vindictive.

4/Make public advertising or cold calling recruitment illegal. Remove all media presence, leafletting and the like.

Again, no. If certain private communities (e.g. gated communities) want to restrict it, that's one thing, the government here in the states cannot establish or prohibit any religious practice.

5/ Remove all state funding.

In as far as they do for other corporations. What's good for Chrysler is good for Christ. Remove ALL corporate subsidies and I'll agree.

6/ Remove all religious education, especially in church schools whether they get funded by the govt or not.

No. If parents want to send little Johnny, Susie, Ishamel, or Rebekka to a parochial school, that's their right.

7/ Make Religious representatives and organistatons liable for their actions and words. If they say god caused a flood, then sue the church.

Ok, part A, making them responsible, only works for actions. So long as they are not inciting a riot, then they still have freedom of speech. The second part isn't even feasible. Suing a church because the pastor said that god did something? How do you show liability?

8/ Encourage public/media debate which involve showing the fallacy of religion.

That's not the government's job and it's being done.

9/Make it illegal to convert under 21's. Especially by the parents.

no. I don't care what the militant arm of the atheists say, under normal circumstances, religious training is not child abuse. Until you can provide hard evidence to the contrary, rather than just a knee-jerk hatred for all-things religion, you cannot take away a parent's right to indoctrinate their children. The government cannot show deference to any religious practice, conversely, they cannot show undue prohibition to the same. This does not include life-threatening practices like not allowing medical treatment, that IS child abuse. Teaching johnny that Jesus dies for his sins (whatever that may mean) isn't. Flagellating Johnny to get him to understand what Jesus went through is, see the difference?

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless. I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.

 

[Lonewulf]

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.

+1

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless. I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.

Eh? Argument by Evolution?

Rather odd, given that I find ideas less to be about "hardware" and more about "software"... or else I could say, "I'm a liberal because I was born that way!" But that's just me.

 

[kmortis]

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.

+1

+2

Or is that not allowed?

 

[biomorph]

That depends on whether or not you think that giving government the power to tell you what you can and can't believe is a good idea. Personally, I don't.

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?
pehaps you disagree.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?
pehaps you disagree.

I do not see pamphlets or information distribution as "intruding on other's lives". I see preventing people from distributing information you do not like to be more of an intrusion.

 

[tsg]

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless. I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.

I think Dawkins covers this pretty well in "The God Delusion". In short, quick pattern recognition at the expense of accuracy is an aid to survival in the "eat or be eaten" past, but less so in the present day where correct information is more important and useful. Seeing intelligence (and faces, for that matter) where there is none is simply a side-effect of that pattern recognition. So yes, there is a reason for it. That does not make it useful, though.

 

[kmortis]

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?

no

If you allow this kind of censorship, what's to stop them when you say something they don't like? And believe me, being an outspoken atheist is more likely to get you looked at askance than an Evangelical here in the states, having been the later and currently am the former, it's more dangerous speaking up for atheism right now. Not a good idea. Free speech is a third rail.

 

[tsg]

I don't think i'd go that far......but some measure of restricting the infliction of such belief on others might have some effect.
perhaps it's the slippery slope.
i'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but restricting the right of religion to intrude into other's lives surely has some merit?
pehaps you disagree.

Well, in that religious belief cannot inflict itself on anyone without his permission, there is little threat. Certainly not enough to warrant gutting freedom of speech to protect against it.

As much as I despise religion, ideally it should collapse under its own weight with all people deciding, for themselves, it's a silly thing to believe. When they can see the gaps of the unknown they are trying to fit their god in become so small as to make it unnecessary, it will happen. Forcing the dissolution of religion will only serve to strengthen it. Few things are more effective at making people want to do a thing than telling them they aren't allowed to.

 

[kmortis]

I think Dawkins covers this pretty well in "The God Delusion". In short, quick pattern recognition at the expense of accuracy is an aid to survival in the "eat or be eaten" past, but less so in the present day where correct information is more important and useful. Seeing intelligence (and faces, for that matter) where there is none is simply a side-effect of that pattern recognition. So yes, there is a reason for it. That does not make it useful, though.

I'm not talking about pattern recognition. I'm talking about the part of the frontal lobe that creates a transcendent feeling. Look at the 47:00 mark to see what I'm talking about. V.S. Ramachandran talks about temporal lobe seizures. THAT'S the section I'm talking about.

 

[biomorph]

Why heavy? I agree with taxation, at least for the non-charitable portions (e.g soup kitchens).

i think soup kitchens are charitable, taking money from the gullible is not.

Again, for the day-to-day operations. Worship is a service just like carpet cleaning, just much less tangible.

yup

Um...no. Now you're just getting vindictive.

you are so right

Again, no. If certain private communities (e.g. gated communities) want to restrict it, that's one thing, the government here in the states cannot establish or prohibit any religious practice.

Ok shame though, and there's the problem

In as far as they do for other corporations. What's good for Chrysler is good for Christ. Remove ALL corporate subsidies and I'll agree.

look you buy a car from chrysler, what do you buy with religion.

No. If parents want to send little Johnny, Susie, Ishamel, or Rebekka to a parochial school, that's their right.

and its their right to have that child suffer? to be fed lies and inanity? where is your value of human rights?

Ok, part A, making them responsible, only works for actions. So long as they are not inciting a riot, then they still have freedom of speech. The second part isn't even feasible. Suing a church because the pastor said that god did something? How do you show liability?

if they claim the god they worship did it, and they say thats true, then surely they are culpable somehow? maybe not.

That's not the government's job and it's being done.

true but the govt is there to protect, it is not doing it.

no. I don't care what the militant arm of the atheists say, under normal circumstances, religious training is not child abuse.

i have to dissagree. sorry i just do.

Until you can provide hard evidence to the contrary, rather than just a knee-jerk hatred for all-things religion, you cannot take away a parent's right to indoctrinate their children.

Well theres a rake of that sort of thing goes on, are you telling me it never happens?

The government cannot show deference to any religious practice, conversely, they cannot show undue prohibition to the same. This does not include life-threatening practices like not allowing medical treatment, that IS child abuse. Teaching johnny that Jesus dies for his sins (whatever that may mean) isn't. Flagellating Johnny to get him to understand what Jesus went through is, see the difference?

yup , but one is a breeding ground for the other.IMO

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless.

which i think it is

I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.

there is no reason, its a hijack, by a timewasting falsehood . if religion is actually useful evolution wise, then i'd like to see the evidence....

 

[Lonewulf]

if religion is actually useful evolution wise, then i'd like to see the evidence....

In this case, yes, I'll agree.

If religion is something that shouldn't be criticized because it has some hidden benefit, I would like to know what exactly that benefit is.

 

[Ladewig]

Well, this thread has gone to hell in a handbasket.

 

[biomorph]

Well, in that religious belief cannot inflict itself on anyone without his permission, there is little threat. Certainly not enough to warrant gutting freedom of speech to protect against it.

I disagree with your first point. i agree with your second. gutting ids not needed, just some judicious pruning.

As much as I despise religion, ideally it should collapse under its own weight with all people deciding, for themselves, it's a silly thing to believe. When they can see the gaps of the unknown they are trying to fit their god in become so small as to make it unnecessary, it will happen.

it hasn't yet, but as an ideal i agree with you

Forcing the dissolution of religion will only serve to strengthen it.

i'm not sure that disolution is forceable. i'm just up for the idea of making as unattractive as possible

Few things are more effective at making people want to do a thing than telling them they aren't allowed to.

well, that swings both ways, yup gotcha there......but i'm not saying, hey, don't be religious, just make it really, really hard to be such..

 

[Upchurch]

I stopped reading this thread a while back because I was letting my frustration with a handful of people and some major changes in my life over the past two months at work get to me I took it out on people should not have.

I wish to apologize for that and I want to thank those of you who gave me the benefit of the doubt.

I consider myself a fan of irony. I just wanted to point out that the above heart-felt apology came from a person whose login is "UnrepentantSinner".

Bravo, US. Bravo.


Of course, you had to ruin my perfectly ironic moment with the following:

I've tried to adopt a new tack when it comes to my honey/vinegar argument and hopefully won't be a jerk on this particular issue in the future.

..though I'm sure I find other ones to be a jerk about.

Which is good and unrepentant.

 

[kmortis]

Why heavy? I agree with taxation, at least for the non-charitable portions (e.g soup kitchens).

i think soup kitchens are charitable, taking money from the gullible is not.

Again, for the day-to-day operations. Worship is a service just like carpet cleaning, just much less tangible.

yup

Good, so we agree on something.

Um...no. Now you're just getting vindictive.

you are so right

Why? Why be so vindictive?

Again, no. If certain private communities (e.g. gated communities) want to restrict it, that's one thing, the government here in the states cannot establish or prohibit any religious practice.

Ok shame though, and there's the problem

Why? Why is having a government that nominally respects all religions (in this case I'm including atheism as a religion only from the "check box" stand point) a bad thing?

In as far as they do for other corporations. What's good for Chrysler is good for Christ. Remove ALL corporate subsidies and I'll agree.

look you buy a car from chrysler, what do you buy with religion.

Some would say "peace of mind" or "comfort". There's a part of religion which is the community. Religion isn't just doctrine and dogma. It's church picnics and pastoral bed side visits when you're in the hospital.

No. If parents want to send little Johnny, Susie, Ishamel, or Rebekka to a parochial school, that's their right.

and its their right to have that child suffer? to be fed lies and inanity? where is your value of human rights?

Wow, back on the vindictive train. In your lexicon, yes. It IS their right to teach, or cause to have taught, their children in whatever manner they find fit. Remember, if you can take their children away and indocrinate them in you fashion, they can do the reverse to yours.

Ok, part A, making them responsible, only works for actions. So long as they are not inciting a riot, then they still have freedom of speech. The second part isn't even feasible. Suing a church because the pastor said that god did something? How do you show liability?

if they claim the god they worship did it, and they say thats true, then surely they are culpable somehow? maybe not.

Then it's the fictional character "god" who's at fault. Good luck subpoenaing him.

That's not the government's job and it's being done.

true but the govt is there to protect, it is not doing it.

To protect all, including the religious.

no. I don't care what the militant arm of the atheists say, under normal circumstances, religious training is not child abuse.

i have to dissagree. sorry i just do.

Ok, present hard evidence that religion is child abuse. Not opinion, evidence. Yes, religious people abuse children. That's humans. Show that ALL religion is abusive by nature. I know it's cool and edgy to make this claim ever since Dawkins wrote it in "The God Delusion", but I claim ******** until there's evidence.

Until you can provide hard evidence to the contrary, rather than just a knee-jerk hatred for all-things religion, you cannot take away a parent's right to indoctrinate their children.

Well theres a rake of that sort of thing goes on, are you telling me it never happens?

No. I freely admit that religious people abuse children. Atheist people abuse children. Adults abuse children. We should tackle the child abuse, not the religion of the people doing the abuse. Humans are fan-freaking-tastic at rationalizing their actions, that they use religion to add credence is not a huge surprise. You take it away and they'll find something else to rationalize with.

The government cannot show deference to any religious practice, conversely, they cannot show undue prohibition to the same. This does not include life-threatening practices like not allowing medical treatment, that IS child abuse. Teaching johnny that Jesus dies for his sins (whatever that may mean) isn't. Flagellating Johnny to get him to understand what Jesus went through is, see the difference?

yup , but one is a breeding ground for the other.IMO

Evidence?

Look, I know that it's really popular right now to slam on religion as if it's totally unnecessary, immoral and useless.

which i think it is

Ok, why?

History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.

I keep coming back to the same thought, if that was the case, and religion is so dangerous to our survival, we would not have a part of our temporal lobe that evolved to produce "transcendent" signals. Could organized religion be a corrupted outgrowth of this, yes, however it does show that there is some reason that it's there.

there is no reason, its a hijack, by a timewasting falsehood . if religion is actually useful evolution wise, then i'd like to see the evidence....

I posted part of Ramachandran's "Beyond Belief" presentation about temporal lobe epileptics. He speaks about finding the "god lobe".

Religion helps strengthen the tribal unit.

 

[kmortis]

Well, this thread has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Glad to be of service.

 

[biomorph]

In this case, yes, I'll agree.

If religion is something that shouldn't be criticized because it has some hidden benefit, I would like to know what exactly that benefit is.

Me too, thank you lonewulf, i guess i've stirred up a hornets nest here, i'd like to back peddle like crazy, but my brain will not let me do that easily.
i have not been in the thick of one of these discussions here much, so i'm sorta outa breath. (puff, puff).

Not to mention out of time, i have to go. Things outside of here are happening......
I'd like to thanK you all so far for an amazing debate which no doubt i'll be partaking of again sometime. Breathtaking, and thanks for all the fish
you guys are cool.
Happy New year and i'll be back.....xxxx

ps i'l deal with you later kmortis....and i'll try to be less vindictive, even though i feel it is justifed, but possibly not fair. look forward to agreeing with you more too. if i can.x