Topic: I am okay with homosexuality
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #37,129
As long as they don't try to force other people being homosexual and don't teach it to their children. Same goes for religion.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later[^] [v] #502,602
How exactly do you teach children to become homosexual (besides raising them to be Democrats)?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,603
Well you cannot teach them to be in a sense true homosexuals. But you see true homosexuals can live for decades without finally realizing they are gay. Initially they start out thinking they are heterosexuals. The same can be done except in reverse, they can start out thinking they are homosexuals.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 31 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,604
@OP
Homosexuality is passed from father to adopted son like a STD.
Homosexuality is passed from father to adopted son like a STD.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #502,605
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,606
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,651
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,653
That's a very republican view of homosexuality there, OP.
There's this great comic where a caricature of a gay turns a non-gay into a gay just by being near him, and it's titled "how conservatives view homosexuality". Shame I can't find it.
There's this great comic where a caricature of a gay turns a non-gay into a gay just by being near him, and it's titled "how conservatives view homosexuality". Shame I can't find it.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,657
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Well i am far from a republican. In fact i don't think that way about homosexuality at all, i don't know what i was thinking but i guess i intended to compare the stereotypical atheist and republican. I know that religion can easily be seen as worse but the same kind of logic is applied.
Well i am far from a republican. In fact i don't think that way about homosexuality at all, i don't know what i was thinking but i guess i intended to compare the stereotypical atheist and republican. I know that religion can easily be seen as worse but the same kind of logic is applied.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 24 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,664
@previous (F)
People who are critical of religion aren't really comparable to homophobes. Homosexuality itself isn't really all that harmful, whilst religion encourages proactive spreading of it and viewing others as I need of saving/"ignorant". It's a concept with very valid criticisms to be made against it, whilst homosexuality is much less so.
People who are critical of religion aren't really comparable to homophobes. Homosexuality itself isn't really all that harmful, whilst religion encourages proactive spreading of it and viewing others as I need of saving/"ignorant". It's a concept with very valid criticisms to be made against it, whilst homosexuality is much less so.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,666
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
there is a difference between being critical to religion or homosexuality, then being phobic of it. Homophobes go around warning against the spread of immorality, confusing homosexuality with rapists etc.... and thus assuming the spread of tolerance of it is bad. The same goes for the stereotypical atheists, they confuse witch burnings with all ideas that are religious and so assume it is bad if religion is being more tolerated.
there is a difference between being critical to religion or homosexuality, then being phobic of it. Homophobes go around warning against the spread of immorality, confusing homosexuality with rapists etc.... and thus assuming the spread of tolerance of it is bad. The same goes for the stereotypical atheists, they confuse witch burnings with all ideas that are religious and so assume it is bad if religion is being more tolerated.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,670
@previous (G)
That is a valid criticism of religion itself, yes. It does promote intolerance. But, IMO, the best response to religion is to promote reason and science to try and educate people out of it. Promoting intolerance of individuals just because they are religious is the wrong way to go about things, as it will likely just cause more conflict.
That is a valid criticism of religion itself, yes. It does promote intolerance. But, IMO, the best response to religion is to promote reason and science to try and educate people out of it. Promoting intolerance of individuals just because they are religious is the wrong way to go about things, as it will likely just cause more conflict.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,672
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
ah but you say intolerance is the wrong way to go about things, yet your acting like a homophobic, you confuse witch burnings with something that should be blamed on everything religious, just like the homophobic confuses gay rapists with all that is homosexual.
Notice how both sides wants to get rid of everything under the same category even though everything under it is not what they are against.
ah but you say intolerance is the wrong way to go about things, yet your acting like a homophobic, you confuse witch burnings with something that should be blamed on everything religious, just like the homophobic confuses gay rapists with all that is homosexual.
Notice how both sides wants to get rid of everything under the same category even though everything under it is not what they are against.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,675
@previous (G)
I never actually advocated blaming everything on religion. But there are many bad things that religion very clearly has a hand in or even causes. This is opposed to the ramblings if homophobes, who have to manufacture or distort things to make homosexuality seem more evil.
That both viewpoints want something removed does not make them the same, or equally bad. You simply want atheism to appear worse by trying to make it seem like it is similar to or the same as a form of bigotry.
I never actually advocated blaming everything on religion. But there are many bad things that religion very clearly has a hand in or even causes. This is opposed to the ramblings if homophobes, who have to manufacture or distort things to make homosexuality seem more evil.
That both viewpoints want something removed does not make them the same, or equally bad. You simply want atheism to appear worse by trying to make it seem like it is similar to or the same as a form of bigotry.
Anonymous G replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,677
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Its not atheism that i want to be seen as bad, i am not saying you want to blame everything on religion. But you see how is it not going to sound like the ramblings of homophobes to the religious people who have nothing to do with the bad things you speak against?
Its not atheism that i want to be seen as bad, i am not saying you want to blame everything on religion. But you see how is it not going to sound like the ramblings of homophobes to the religious people who have nothing to do with the bad things you speak against?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,699
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #502,725
@502,677 (G)
They do have something to do with it, if only indirectly. Religion itself is divisive and promotes irrational thinking.
@previous (H)
That's the one. :')
They do have something to do with it, if only indirectly. Religion itself is divisive and promotes irrational thinking.
@previous (H)
That's the one. :')
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #502,790
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Just being yourself is divisive, belonging to a country is divisive, i could go on forever here but the point is that criticizing something for being divisive goes both ways.
> promotes irrational thinking
A strange criticism, considering you are behaving irrationally. But essentially you are just saying that it promotes the belief in things that you do not believe in, and that makes it wrong.
Just being yourself is divisive, belonging to a country is divisive, i could go on forever here but the point is that criticizing something for being divisive goes both ways.
> promotes irrational thinking
A strange criticism, considering you are behaving irrationally. But essentially you are just saying that it promotes the belief in things that you do not believe in, and that makes it wrong.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #502,811
@previous (I)
Religion is, overall, more divisive than any individual's traits or quirks. And, importantly, religion is something that can be questioned and reduced through education. Personalities not so easily. As for nationality, that can and should be made less of a point of tension through promotion of tolerance.
And of course it promotes irrational thinking. It would have people believe in things such as Noah repopulating the world with only two of every animal, of Jesus feeding loads of people with only a few fish, of dead rising out of their graves and walking around a city. There are loads of instances of things like this in Christianity alone, events that are plainly impossible/fabricated yet are preached as truth. And then there's how it promotes the irrationality of intolerance, in that it encourages disdain towards non-believers or women who don't want to follow an outdated gender role.
And yes, believing that there is a magical sky god controlling everything is itself irrational. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and there is no solid evidence for such a being existing. Yet people wholly believe in it just because they have been convinced that it's true.
Religion is, overall, more divisive than any individual's traits or quirks. And, importantly, religion is something that can be questioned and reduced through education. Personalities not so easily. As for nationality, that can and should be made less of a point of tension through promotion of tolerance.
And of course it promotes irrational thinking. It would have people believe in things such as Noah repopulating the world with only two of every animal, of Jesus feeding loads of people with only a few fish, of dead rising out of their graves and walking around a city. There are loads of instances of things like this in Christianity alone, events that are plainly impossible/fabricated yet are preached as truth. And then there's how it promotes the irrationality of intolerance, in that it encourages disdain towards non-believers or women who don't want to follow an outdated gender role.
And yes, believing that there is a magical sky god controlling everything is itself irrational. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and there is no solid evidence for such a being existing. Yet people wholly believe in it just because they have been convinced that it's true.
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #502,820
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Religion is, overall, more divisive than any individual's traits or quirks. And, importantly, religion is something that can be questioned and reduced through education. Personalities not so easily.
In my country the most isolated people are people who are bullied for one stupid reason or another but yet never are they for religious reasons. Everything can be reduced through education, if you educate the public of the exact opposite. In my country religion is something that is educated in public schools. But who are often the biggest victims of religious intolerance? People of other religions.
> As for nationality, that can and should be made less of a point of tension through promotion of tolerance.
A fine idea, you should apply this to religion as well. Instead of promoting tolerance by creating a generalized idea of religion and advocate its non existence (while wondering like an idiot why religious people don't listen to you) you should advocate
and promote tolerance. If you have many groups that are not getting along, then its stupid to form yet another new group (atheists) that disapproves of all the others. (and wondering like a idiot why people won't join your group)
> And of course it promotes irrational thinking
It is irrational to think that everyone must always be rational. Its an opinion that is not built on facts or evidence, it is a moral claim and morality is subjective. You are still just advocating everyone be like you just like all other bigots do.
> Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence
The key question here is what do they require it for? To establish the claims as scientific fact? I think you are right here. But some people have no problems believing in things that are not proven, its a part of their personality (the hardest thing to change). If you advocate that people only believe in the factual they will first see if its a fact that people should only believe in the factual and its not factual, its an opinion.
http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s10e12-go-god-go#source=57baee9c-b611-4260-958b-05315479a7fc:25eebdac-ed8e-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30&position=12&sort=!airdate
> Religion is, overall, more divisive than any individual's traits or quirks. And, importantly, religion is something that can be questioned and reduced through education. Personalities not so easily.
In my country the most isolated people are people who are bullied for one stupid reason or another but yet never are they for religious reasons. Everything can be reduced through education, if you educate the public of the exact opposite. In my country religion is something that is educated in public schools. But who are often the biggest victims of religious intolerance? People of other religions.
> As for nationality, that can and should be made less of a point of tension through promotion of tolerance.
A fine idea, you should apply this to religion as well. Instead of promoting tolerance by creating a generalized idea of religion and advocate its non existence (while wondering like an idiot why religious people don't listen to you) you should advocate
and promote tolerance. If you have many groups that are not getting along, then its stupid to form yet another new group (atheists) that disapproves of all the others. (and wondering like a idiot why people won't join your group)
> And of course it promotes irrational thinking
It is irrational to think that everyone must always be rational. Its an opinion that is not built on facts or evidence, it is a moral claim and morality is subjective. You are still just advocating everyone be like you just like all other bigots do.
> Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence
The key question here is what do they require it for? To establish the claims as scientific fact? I think you are right here. But some people have no problems believing in things that are not proven, its a part of their personality (the hardest thing to change). If you advocate that people only believe in the factual they will first see if its a fact that people should only believe in the factual and its not factual, its an opinion.
http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s10e12-go-god-go#source=57baee9c-b611-4260-958b-05315479a7fc:25eebdac-ed8e-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30&position=12&sort=!airdate
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #502,826
"im okay with homosexuality as long as they arent homosexual near me" - @OP
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #502,829
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
But i said the same about religion. I guess your not a fan of religion?
But i said the same about religion. I guess your not a fan of religion?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #502,832
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 12 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #502,843
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 21 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #503,033
@502,820 (I)
Though religion leads to more serious shit than school bullying, if it's allowed to gain enough influence.
To your second point: ultimately, as long as religion is a big thing, just it existing will be at least slightly divisive. They're obligated to push their irrational beliefs, and they're obligated to try and spread their beliefs to others. Trying to make them more tolerant won't solve the inherent issues. And while of course the more hardline ones likely won't be so receptive to their beliefs being questioned, less extreme ones can likely be steadily brought out of it through promotion of reason, which could ultimately lead religion losing its relevance.
So... You're openly advocating that irrational, utterly nonsense claims are okay? It's preferable for people to be rational, m8. And no, it's not a "moral claim" to point out religion's assorted issues. It's not "bigotry" to point out that many things that a religion might claim are factually wrong. Your attitude here is actually fairly typical of more hardline religious people, though. Anyone who attacks religion is a branded a bigot, to neatly sidestep any valid criticisms.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying in that last part, but you seem to be implying that it's okay to believe in non-factual things if a person feels like it. They're free to do so, but the act of doing so is still illogical and, well, naive.
Though religion leads to more serious shit than school bullying, if it's allowed to gain enough influence.
To your second point: ultimately, as long as religion is a big thing, just it existing will be at least slightly divisive. They're obligated to push their irrational beliefs, and they're obligated to try and spread their beliefs to others. Trying to make them more tolerant won't solve the inherent issues. And while of course the more hardline ones likely won't be so receptive to their beliefs being questioned, less extreme ones can likely be steadily brought out of it through promotion of reason, which could ultimately lead religion losing its relevance.
So... You're openly advocating that irrational, utterly nonsense claims are okay? It's preferable for people to be rational, m8. And no, it's not a "moral claim" to point out religion's assorted issues. It's not "bigotry" to point out that many things that a religion might claim are factually wrong. Your attitude here is actually fairly typical of more hardline religious people, though. Anyone who attacks religion is a branded a bigot, to neatly sidestep any valid criticisms.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying in that last part, but you seem to be implying that it's okay to believe in non-factual things if a person feels like it. They're free to do so, but the act of doing so is still illogical and, well, naive.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #503,054
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Though religion leads to more serious shit than school bullying, if it's allowed to gain enough influence.
This is like me saying atheism would lead to serious shit if allowed to gain enough influence, comparing all atheism to the atheistic soviet union that tried to banish all religion with intolerance.
> ultimately, as long as religion is a big thing, just it existing will be at least slightly divisive. They're obligated to push their irrational beliefs, and they're obligated to try and spread their beliefs to others. Trying to make them more tolerant won't solve the inherent issues. And while of course the more hardline ones likely won't be so receptive to their beliefs being questioned, less extreme ones can likely be steadily brought out of it through promotion of reason, which could ultimately lead religion losing its relevance.
Firstly, people being different is not an argument against something. Secondly, you have created a false image of all religions again when you say they are all obligated to spread their beliefs. Thirdly, the possibility of an idea to spread is not an argument against that idea. Fourthly, if you
teach the public the exact opposite then of course the public will show a increase of favor concerning the opposite. And if you want to talk about inherent issues then the inherent issues of Nations is far bigger, are you to suggest that we should just give up on trying to be tolerant of each other?
> You're openly advocating that irrational, utterly nonsense claims are okay? It's preferable for people to be rational, m8. And no, it's not a "moral claim" to point out religion's assorted issues. It's not "bigotry" to point out that many things that a religion might claim are factually wrong. Your attitude here is actually fairly typical of more hardline religious people, though. Anyone who attacks religion is a branded a bigot, to neatly sidestep any valid criticisms.
It is a moral claim to claim that everyone should be rational or not allowed to say anything irrational. It is as if i would claim everyone should be Muslim. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, but when you treat all religious people as the same single person, then that is what they will think of you.
> Though religion leads to more serious shit than school bullying, if it's allowed to gain enough influence.
This is like me saying atheism would lead to serious shit if allowed to gain enough influence, comparing all atheism to the atheistic soviet union that tried to banish all religion with intolerance.
> ultimately, as long as religion is a big thing, just it existing will be at least slightly divisive. They're obligated to push their irrational beliefs, and they're obligated to try and spread their beliefs to others. Trying to make them more tolerant won't solve the inherent issues. And while of course the more hardline ones likely won't be so receptive to their beliefs being questioned, less extreme ones can likely be steadily brought out of it through promotion of reason, which could ultimately lead religion losing its relevance.
Firstly, people being different is not an argument against something. Secondly, you have created a false image of all religions again when you say they are all obligated to spread their beliefs. Thirdly, the possibility of an idea to spread is not an argument against that idea. Fourthly, if you
teach the public the exact opposite then of course the public will show a increase of favor concerning the opposite. And if you want to talk about inherent issues then the inherent issues of Nations is far bigger, are you to suggest that we should just give up on trying to be tolerant of each other?
> You're openly advocating that irrational, utterly nonsense claims are okay? It's preferable for people to be rational, m8. And no, it's not a "moral claim" to point out religion's assorted issues. It's not "bigotry" to point out that many things that a religion might claim are factually wrong. Your attitude here is actually fairly typical of more hardline religious people, though. Anyone who attacks religion is a branded a bigot, to neatly sidestep any valid criticisms.
It is a moral claim to claim that everyone should be rational or not allowed to say anything irrational. It is as if i would claim everyone should be Muslim. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, but when you treat all religious people as the same single person, then that is what they will think of you.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 22 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #503,268
@previous (M)
> This is like me saying atheism would lead to serious shit if allowed to gain enough influence, comparing all atheism to the atheistic soviet union that tried to banish all religion with intolerance.
A clasic, but incorrect critcism of atheism. Atheism is just a lack of faith, the USSR was an oppressive regime that sought to gain control and push its idealogy. They just happened to be atheistic, the important part was that they were an oppressive regime. And no, atheism itself wouldn't lead to anything bad if it became dominant, because it is simply a lack of religion. It doesn't encourage factionalism or ire against other groups.
> Firstly, people being different is not an argument against something.
The movement that they adhere to, religion, will try to argue against things. This is why we have things like the Catholic church trying to ban contraception, or Muslims stoning people to death. It's not just that people differ on faih, but those faiths have some very dodgy practices and beliefs that are pushed a lot because said faiths are popular.
> Thirdly, the possibility of an idea to spread is not an argument against that idea.
I'm not quite sure what's being addressed here. You're saying that atheism/science/reason ect being spread better won't de-power relgion? Of course it will, those things are usually in direct opposition many aspects of religion.
> Secondly, you have created a false image of all religions again when you say they are all obligated to spread their beliefs.
...Of course they are. They're all concerned with spreading their thinking to others. The mainstream ones definitely. What, are you saying that there are (relevant) religions that don't want any new followers?
> are you to suggest that we should just give up on trying to be tolerant of each other?
No. A main point of mine is how humanity will most likely get along better if religion were to fade away, thus increasing tolerance.
> It is a moral claim to claim that everyone should be rational or not allowed to say anything irrational. It is as if i would claim everyone should be Muslim.
It is better for people to be rational, grounded in reality, than prone to irrational thinking. You trying to frame it as some subjective moral choice doesn't change this.
> This is like me saying atheism would lead to serious shit if allowed to gain enough influence, comparing all atheism to the atheistic soviet union that tried to banish all religion with intolerance.
A clasic, but incorrect critcism of atheism. Atheism is just a lack of faith, the USSR was an oppressive regime that sought to gain control and push its idealogy. They just happened to be atheistic, the important part was that they were an oppressive regime. And no, atheism itself wouldn't lead to anything bad if it became dominant, because it is simply a lack of religion. It doesn't encourage factionalism or ire against other groups.
> Firstly, people being different is not an argument against something.
The movement that they adhere to, religion, will try to argue against things. This is why we have things like the Catholic church trying to ban contraception, or Muslims stoning people to death. It's not just that people differ on faih, but those faiths have some very dodgy practices and beliefs that are pushed a lot because said faiths are popular.
> Thirdly, the possibility of an idea to spread is not an argument against that idea.
I'm not quite sure what's being addressed here. You're saying that atheism/science/reason ect being spread better won't de-power relgion? Of course it will, those things are usually in direct opposition many aspects of religion.
> Secondly, you have created a false image of all religions again when you say they are all obligated to spread their beliefs.
...Of course they are. They're all concerned with spreading their thinking to others. The mainstream ones definitely. What, are you saying that there are (relevant) religions that don't want any new followers?
> are you to suggest that we should just give up on trying to be tolerant of each other?
No. A main point of mine is how humanity will most likely get along better if religion were to fade away, thus increasing tolerance.
> It is a moral claim to claim that everyone should be rational or not allowed to say anything irrational. It is as if i would claim everyone should be Muslim.
It is better for people to be rational, grounded in reality, than prone to irrational thinking. You trying to frame it as some subjective moral choice doesn't change this.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #503,269
I'll put this in a seperate post, to distinguish it from my counter-points.
So, Iceland guy, I'd like to put a question to you, if I may. How come you're supportive of religion? What's its appeal to you? I think I recall you once mentioning that you liked how it supposedly encourages more moral behaviour?
So, Iceland guy, I'd like to put a question to you, if I may. How come you're supportive of religion? What's its appeal to you? I think I recall you once mentioning that you liked how it supposedly encourages more moral behaviour?
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #503,298
@503,268 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> A clasic, but incorrect critcism of atheism. Atheism is just a lack of faith, the USSR was an oppressive regime that sought to gain control and push its idealogy. They just happened to be atheistic, the important part was that they were an oppressive regime.
So when atheism is spread with intolerance and iron might, atheism is not to blame because its not what is being spread that is to blame but the people and their actions that are to blame? I agree but you see the same applies to religion.
> The movement that they adhere to, religion, will try to argue against things. This is why we have things like the Catholic church trying to ban contraception, or Muslims stoning people to death.
there you make a mistake in your thinking, someones religion is not identified as religion. If you have not heard, ISIS has been killing people for belonging to a different faith and they have been doing so thinking that its morally justified. To blame the actions of ISIS on all morality
or instead all religion is not only unfair but deeply disrespectful to the very religious people that they kill for being different.
> I'm not quite sure what's being addressed here
He was criticizing all religion because it could spread and make people different from each other. That can apply to anything and is thus not really a good criticism. Of course if we teach the public atheism, then it will produce atheists. But this can apply to anything.
> Of course they are. They're all concerned with spreading their thinking to others
I was actually referring to religious people here, it is simply not true that all of them try to spread their religion but almost always there are some who try, but simply trying to spread something is not bad or makes what they try to spread bad.
> A main point of mine is how humanity will most likely get along better if religion were to fade away, thus increasing tolerance.
yeah and humanity would get along better if we all belonged to the same nation. It still makes you look like a dick to everyone if you for example would advocate that England should be the only nation in existence.
> It is better for people to be rational, grounded in reality, than prone to irrational thinking. You trying to frame it as some subjective moral choice doesn't change this.
You mean this in a very childish way, you are essentially saying that it would be better if everyone thought the same as you do. But you see this can apply to everything. Also the point about it being subjective moral choice is that you are taking this idea of yours and thinking of it as being
the truth, when its in reality subjective. Which i thought rationality and being grounded in reality was not at all about.
> A clasic, but incorrect critcism of atheism. Atheism is just a lack of faith, the USSR was an oppressive regime that sought to gain control and push its idealogy. They just happened to be atheistic, the important part was that they were an oppressive regime.
So when atheism is spread with intolerance and iron might, atheism is not to blame because its not what is being spread that is to blame but the people and their actions that are to blame? I agree but you see the same applies to religion.
> The movement that they adhere to, religion, will try to argue against things. This is why we have things like the Catholic church trying to ban contraception, or Muslims stoning people to death.
there you make a mistake in your thinking, someones religion is not identified as religion. If you have not heard, ISIS has been killing people for belonging to a different faith and they have been doing so thinking that its morally justified. To blame the actions of ISIS on all morality
or instead all religion is not only unfair but deeply disrespectful to the very religious people that they kill for being different.
> I'm not quite sure what's being addressed here
He was criticizing all religion because it could spread and make people different from each other. That can apply to anything and is thus not really a good criticism. Of course if we teach the public atheism, then it will produce atheists. But this can apply to anything.
> Of course they are. They're all concerned with spreading their thinking to others
I was actually referring to religious people here, it is simply not true that all of them try to spread their religion but almost always there are some who try, but simply trying to spread something is not bad or makes what they try to spread bad.
> A main point of mine is how humanity will most likely get along better if religion were to fade away, thus increasing tolerance.
yeah and humanity would get along better if we all belonged to the same nation. It still makes you look like a dick to everyone if you for example would advocate that England should be the only nation in existence.
> It is better for people to be rational, grounded in reality, than prone to irrational thinking. You trying to frame it as some subjective moral choice doesn't change this.
You mean this in a very childish way, you are essentially saying that it would be better if everyone thought the same as you do. But you see this can apply to everything. Also the point about it being subjective moral choice is that you are taking this idea of yours and thinking of it as being
the truth, when its in reality subjective. Which i thought rationality and being grounded in reality was not at all about.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous N double-posted this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #503,299
@503,269 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I am not supportive of religion. The thing about what i said earlier some long time ago, i am not really sure. But i was always sensitive as a child, i would get angry or sad easily. No where else did i ever find a group dedicated to the values of kindness then in those christian classes. It meant a lot to me at the time.
I am not supportive of religion. The thing about what i said earlier some long time ago, i am not really sure. But i was always sensitive as a child, i would get angry or sad easily. No where else did i ever find a group dedicated to the values of kindness then in those christian classes. It meant a lot to me at the time.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 20 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #503,519
@503,298 (N)
> I agree but you see the same applies to religion.
It can, but the difference is that religion can much more actively encourage that behaviour. All the time, we have religious extremists saying that their religion/god supports their heinous actions. They have this belief system that they're so heavily invested in, that advocates that they spread their way of thinking and their own customs. Atheism, meanwhile, advocates nothing, but is merely an absence of faith. You seem to conflate it with religion itself as some sort of philosophy (like religion is), but it's nothing of the sort.
> there you make a mistake in your thinking, someones religion is not identified as religion. If you have not heard, ISIS has been killing people for belonging to a different faith and they have been doing so thinking that its morally justified. To blame the actions of ISIS on all morality or instead all religion is not only unfair but deeply disrespectful to the very religious people that they kill for being different.
So... You're saying that because not all religious people are extremists, the ISIS attacks are balanced out? Are they worth it as long as the rest of religion is around? I'm slightly confused here, you've provided a very current and relevant example of how religion can fuel horrible deeds, supposedly as a counter-point to somebody criticising religion.
> He was criticizing all religion because it could spread and make people different from each other. That can apply to anything and is thus not really a good criticism. Of course if we teach the public atheism, then it will produce atheists. But this can apply to anything.
> yeah and humanity would get along better if we all belonged to the same nation. It still makes you look like a dick to everyone if you for example would advocate that England should be the only nation in existence.
Yes, we can discourage or remove certain socially created divides between people in order to help people get along better. Not all differences can be removed, but religion is one such thing that could be removed.
> I was actually referring to religious people here, it is simply not true that all of them try to spread their religion but almost always there are some who try, but simply trying to spread something is not bad or makes what they try to spread bad.
Yes, not all religious people are all that proactive, but many are. And yes, spreading irrational and divisive beliefs is bad.
> You mean this in a very childish way, you are essentially saying that it would be better if everyone thought the same as you do.
Not at all. All I'm advocating is the disappearence of an irrational, divisive belief.
@previous (N)
You certainly seem supportive of it, at least enough to dedicatedly defend it from criticism. But anyway, I must point out, kindness needn't be advocated by the religious. In fact, I'd find it sad if people felt they had to rely on religion to spread or find kindness. Need we the promise of eternal life, or the threat of hellfire simply to promote good values?
Also, how come you keep dropping your ID? Your anon letter keeps changing, I notice.
> I agree but you see the same applies to religion.
It can, but the difference is that religion can much more actively encourage that behaviour. All the time, we have religious extremists saying that their religion/god supports their heinous actions. They have this belief system that they're so heavily invested in, that advocates that they spread their way of thinking and their own customs. Atheism, meanwhile, advocates nothing, but is merely an absence of faith. You seem to conflate it with religion itself as some sort of philosophy (like religion is), but it's nothing of the sort.
> there you make a mistake in your thinking, someones religion is not identified as religion. If you have not heard, ISIS has been killing people for belonging to a different faith and they have been doing so thinking that its morally justified. To blame the actions of ISIS on all morality or instead all religion is not only unfair but deeply disrespectful to the very religious people that they kill for being different.
So... You're saying that because not all religious people are extremists, the ISIS attacks are balanced out? Are they worth it as long as the rest of religion is around? I'm slightly confused here, you've provided a very current and relevant example of how religion can fuel horrible deeds, supposedly as a counter-point to somebody criticising religion.
> He was criticizing all religion because it could spread and make people different from each other. That can apply to anything and is thus not really a good criticism. Of course if we teach the public atheism, then it will produce atheists. But this can apply to anything.
> yeah and humanity would get along better if we all belonged to the same nation. It still makes you look like a dick to everyone if you for example would advocate that England should be the only nation in existence.
Yes, we can discourage or remove certain socially created divides between people in order to help people get along better. Not all differences can be removed, but religion is one such thing that could be removed.
> I was actually referring to religious people here, it is simply not true that all of them try to spread their religion but almost always there are some who try, but simply trying to spread something is not bad or makes what they try to spread bad.
Yes, not all religious people are all that proactive, but many are. And yes, spreading irrational and divisive beliefs is bad.
> You mean this in a very childish way, you are essentially saying that it would be better if everyone thought the same as you do.
Not at all. All I'm advocating is the disappearence of an irrational, divisive belief.
@previous (N)
You certainly seem supportive of it, at least enough to dedicatedly defend it from criticism. But anyway, I must point out, kindness needn't be advocated by the religious. In fact, I'd find it sad if people felt they had to rely on religion to spread or find kindness. Need we the promise of eternal life, or the threat of hellfire simply to promote good values?
Also, how come you keep dropping your ID? Your anon letter keeps changing, I notice.