I see absolutely no evidence that assholes are anything other than assholes. Loren is free to believe in invisible links that cause the idea of religion to warp good people into assholes, and free to believe that they would magically change their ways when they hear the Truth, but that kind of blind faith in a nice story about how $IDEOLOGY can cure all wounds doesn't appeal to me.
there is no secular reason to consider condom use immoral.
There's plenty of secular reasons to make other people consider it immoral!
I don't know what they are. I'm sure they're there, though.
They $ethnic minority are outbreeding our pure white race. We must ban birthcontrol in order to ensure a bright and glorious future for our noble race.
Still, you shouldn't expel a student from art school for being a douchebag
There'd be no artists!
I don't think it was really an "art school" in the way that we generally think of them. It seems to have been something like an art/ design version of DeVry's or Strayer. Not exactly the Academy, and their rather brusque dismissal of this guy reminds me a lot of the way a business would function as opposed to academia.
I don't think getting religion would solve any problems at all. That's like getting rid of R-rated movies and videogames because they make people more aggressive. There's plenty of other shit to rile people up with.
I don't think getting religion would solve any problems at all. That's like getting rid of R-rated movies and videogames because they make people more aggressive. There's plenty of other shit to rile people up with.
if someone stops believing in god, are they going to adhere to the tenants of their religion?
i know far too many fundamentalists who aren't assholes. they're wrong-- very wrong --about a great many things in life, but they're not assholes because of it. they are cloistered and ignorant, but they aren't fundamentalist out of some vindictive need to oppress. some may be. many may be, for that matter, but it's inane to throw that kind of judgment on that many people and just cast them all as assholes. they aren't.
if someone stops believing in god, are they going to adhere to the tenants of their religion?
i know far too many fundamentalists who aren't assholes. they're wrong-- very wrong --about a great many things in life, but they're not assholes because of it. they are cloistered and ignorant, but they aren't fundamentalist out of some vindictive need to oppress. some may be. many may be, for that matter, but it's inane to throw that kind of judgment on that many people and just cast them all as assholes. they aren't.
No, you simply continue to pretend that if religion went away, human nature would somehow change and that bigotry, misogyny, and every other shitty aspect of the human race wouldn't be every bit as prevalent. You're no better than the fundamentalist who attacks atheism because he mistakes it for the root of all society's ills.
Human nature wouldn't change, but at least we would be rid of one more layer of bullshit that people hide behind and use to justify those harmful ideas.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Except that a lot of people believe in religion without adhering to the tenants of their religion
I'm a religious guy and I don't believe in banning condoms or gay marriage or killing all them durka durkas
and i never suggested you did. i'm talking about fundamentalists. the people who do lend their holy text a certain amount of reverence and acceptance as a moral authority.
Except that a lot of people believe in religion without adhering to the tenants of their religion
I'm a religious guy and I don't believe in banning condoms or gay marriage or killing all them durka durkas
and i never suggested you did. i'm talking about fundamentalists. the people who do lend their holy text a certain amount of reverence and acceptance as a moral authority.
Yes, because our holy text very clearly says we have to believe in banning condoms and gay marriage and kill all them durka durkas. We're really rejecting its moral authority by not following these clearly-written-out, unambiguous, explicit commandments.
in any case, it's clear he is kind of a douchebag but his conduct does not seem to justify expulsion. Unless they are more forthcoming on the other incidents that led to this, we have no idea if they are on the same level or if they are worse.
While everyone is pointing out the guy's ulterior motives and twistings, the school obviously has a vested interest and wants to cover its ass. It is not beyond them to lie/distort the number and severity of complaints against him.
Let's not be so quick to pile on him despite the fact that he is annoying.
Except that a lot of people believe in religion without adhering to the tenants of their religion
I'm a religious guy and I don't believe in banning condoms or gay marriage or killing all them durka durkas
and i never suggested you did. i'm talking about fundamentalists. the people who do lend their holy text a certain amount of reverence and acceptance as a moral authority.
So, get rid of religion to get rid of the fundamentalists. Nevermind the people that have a genuine desire for faith, that aren't assholes.
No, you simply continue to pretend that if religion went away, human nature would somehow change and that bigotry, misogyny, and every other shitty aspect of the human race wouldn't be every bit as prevalent. You're no better than the fundamentalist who attacks atheism because he mistakes it for the root of all society's ills.
Human nature wouldn't change, but at least we would be rid of one more layer of bullshit that people hide behind and use to justify those harmful ideas.
It's not like it's hard to make up a new justification for being a douche.
Look, what the world needs more of is tolerance and understanding. It needs people to have open minds and to challenge their belief structures - I agree with you guys there. But why should it matter if those changes come hand in hand with religion? Why should we turn back a future Martin Luther King or Ghandi because they believe in things that they cannot justify to your satisfaction?
Loren, my problem with your argument isn't that it's wrong, it's just that it's so fundamentally intellectually lazy. You're so hell-bend accusing religion with everything bad that you're blind to it's good aspects, or the neutral/inoffensive aspects that don't affect you. You have some valid grievances, but you take the intellectually easy route all the time.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
Might people be illogical regardless? Of course, but that doesn't make an effort to work against that disengenuous or naive.
I disagree. If your (well-meaning) actions have the practical effect of driving moderates towards fundamentalism because you continually bleat that science and rationality are incompatible with beliefs that they are immensely attached to, you've actively made the world a worse place through sheer ignorance of human nature and a dogmatic inability to live and let live when it comes to harmless moderates.
Loren, my problem with your argument isn't that it's wrong, it's just that it's so fundamentally intellectually lazy. You're so hell-bend accusing religion with everything bad that you're blind to it's good aspects, or the neutral/inoffensive aspects that don't affect you. You have some valid grievances, but you take the intellectually easy route all the time.
funny, i don't think you've read anything i've typed at all.
-i have never indicated that religion is the source of all human ills, or anything of the sort. my argument is that it is a subset of the greater problems of dogma and nonemperical belief.
-i have frequently noted that religion had good aspects, and benign and neutral aspects. my argument is that they do not matter, as there are secular alternatives that do not have the baggage of needing to believe in anything on insufficient evidence.
look at previous threads to read up on my arguments.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
you get a raised eyebrow if you think an ideology deserves the same protections as race. if you think religions don't influence individuals, or that beliefs are meaningless. it's perfectly rational to fear a coherent, political ideology, particularly one as virulent and dangerous as fundamentalism. there is no analogy to be made to racism here. you could make an analogy to republicans and democrats, perhaps.
Except that a lot of people believe in religion without adhering to the tenants of their religion
I'm a religious guy and I don't believe in banning condoms or gay marriage or killing all them durka durkas
and i never suggested you did. i'm talking about fundamentalists. the people who do lend their holy text a certain amount of reverence and acceptance as a moral authority.
Yes, because our holy text very clearly says we have to believe in banning condoms and gay marriage and kill all them durka durkas. We're really rejecting its moral authority by not following these clearly-written-out, unambiguous, explicit commandments.
At least the gay part is clearly written-out and unambiguous and pretty fuckin explicit. If a man lays with a man as he lays with a woman, stone them both. I see no room for argument. Condom use is linked to the story of Onan. While not explicit, there is a connection.
Killing people that are not of the same religion as you is almost an extention of the religion regardless of what the book itself says, because all religions claim to be right. It creates a messy situation.
Let's say we go back a couple thousand years, take religion out of the middle east. Human history would be vastly changed, so to say that religion merely covers up human indiscretions instead of creating them is patently false.
People will always have things to fight about and hate each other over, but the less reasons there are, the better off we are.
I disagree. If your (well-meaning) actions have the practical effect of driving moderates towards fundamentalism because you continually bleat that science and rationality are incompatible with beliefs that they are immensely attached to, you've actively made the world a worse place through sheer ignorance of human nature and a dogmatic inability to live and let live when it comes to harmless moderates.
i have yet to see anything outside of wild speculation that anything of the sort is taking place.
Might people be illogical regardless? Of course, but that doesn't make an effort to work against that disengenuous or naive.
I disagree. If your (well-meaning) actions have the practical effect of driving moderates towards fundamentalism because you continually bleat that science and rationality are incompatible with beliefs that they are immensely attached to, you've actively made the world a worse place through sheer ignorance of human nature and a dogmatic inability to live and let live when it comes to harmless moderates.
Well I didn't mention how one would go about attempting to change the world for the better.
I'm no Dawkins.
Also, if I introduce a little doubt into people's worlds, just like if they introduce doubt into mine, that's a healthy thing. People should be encouraged to think critically. I don't think you have enough evidence that fundamentalists turn that way because of experiences where they had an atheist politely argue with them to make that claim here.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
Fundamentalists choose how to think. People don't choose their race. Critical thinking is not the acceptence of all ideas. It's taking each idea on it's own merits and deciding if it's good or not. Religion is not a good idea, at least not anymore. I've critically thought about it for a long time.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
you get a raised eyebrow if you think an ideology deserves the same protections as race.
What the fuck was the First Amendment all about then, eh?
if you think religions don't influence individuals, or that beliefs are meaningless. it's perfectly rational to fear a coherent, political ideology, particularly one as virulent and dangerous as fundamentalism.
But, as people have pointed out - to call for the abolishment of religion does not address the root issues of the fundamentalist mindset, and it can have adverse affects, too.
Religion is not a good idea, at least not anymore. I've critically thought about it for a long time.
Well then, don't be religious. Hell, if you want, go out and preach the word of aethism. Don't expect anyone to love you for it, though - you'll just be the secular equivalent of a door-knocking Mormon.
As much as you may think, you haven't discovered the secret to social harmony. Getting rid of religion will not do anything to make people less close-minded and illogical.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
you get a raised eyebrow if you think an ideology deserves the same protections as race.
What the fuck was the First Amendment all about then, eh?
The First Amendment protects your right to say whatever the fuck you want, but it doesn't protect you from criticism.
But, as people have pointed out - to call for the abolishment of religion does not address the root issues of the fundamentalist mindset, and it can have adverse affects, too.
No one is calling for a ban or abolishment, simply moving away from the idea and the only way to do so is to make it clear that the idea itself can be moved away from.
We didn't ban racism, but we moved away from it once people realized that they could and there was a reason to do so.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
you get a raised eyebrow if you think an ideology deserves the same protections as race.
What the fuck was the First Amendment all about then, eh?
The First Amendment protects your right to say whatever the fuck you want, but it doesn't protect you from criticism.
I meant the freedom of religion/protective elements of the Amendment. Free speech is a different matter.
As much as you may think, you haven't discovered the secret to social harmony. Getting rid of religion will not do anything to make people less close-minded and illogical.
I believe that you are wrong. I'll continue the example that racism has forth for us. We moved away from racism incredibly rapidly. While it's not extinct and will likely never be, it gave a lot of people one less reason to be close-minded and illogical. Society changed for the better. I'm not looking for the end all be all solution for social harmony, but you don't seem to think it can exist or is worth trying to acheive at all.
But, as people have pointed out - to call for the abolishment of religion does not address the root issues of the fundamentalist mindset, and it can have adverse affects, too.
abolishment of religion is a side effect of the greater problem of dogma and nonemperical belief, which i am, of course, against. religion is simply the most widely accepted and, possibly with the exception of tribalism, the most deeply ingrained species of this kind of thinking in societies.
religion is simply the most egregious offender today, and the most prominent problem. not to mention one of the most complex and difficult problems to approach.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
you get a raised eyebrow if you think an ideology deserves the same protections as race.
What the fuck was the First Amendment all about then, eh?
The First Amendment protects your right to say whatever the fuck you want, but it doesn't protect you from criticism.
I meant the freedom of religion/protective elements of the Amendment. Free speech is a different matter.
No one is talking about taking away freedom of religion. But, just like speech, just because you are free to be whatever religion you want, doesn't mean it's above criticism. Any choice(religion is a choice) is subject to criticism. Race is not, because it is not a choice.
At least the gay part is clearly written-out and unambiguous and pretty fuckin explicit. If a man lays with a man as he lays with a woman, stone them both. I see no room for argument.
Condom use is linked to the story of Onan. While not explicit, there is a connection.
A tenuous one at best.
Killing people that are not of the same religion as you is almost an extention of the religion regardless of what the book itself says, because all religions claim to be right. It creates a messy situation.
Right, and the only way to argue or demonstrate that you're right is to kill everyone who disagrees with you.
Let's say we go back a couple thousand years, take religion out of the middle east. Human history would be vastly changed, so to say that religion merely covers up human indiscretions instead of creating them is patently false.
No one's arguing that going back in time and removing religion won't lead to a completely different world today. We're arguing whether it will lead to a better world. Different is not better nor worse. You have yet to provide any evidence that your timeline will be better.
People will always have things to fight about and hate each other over, but the less reasons there are, the better off we are.
Right, eliminating something because it's something people fight over makes sense. Let's get rid of money, love, nations, races, sex, power, and those damn kids who won't get off my lawn while we're at it.
But, as people have pointed out - to call for the abolishment of religion does not address the root issues of the fundamentalist mindset, and it can have adverse affects, too.
abolishment of religion is a side effect of the greater problem of dogma and nonemperical belief, which i am, of course, against. religion is simply the most widely accepted and, possibly with the exception of tribalism, the most deeply ingrained species of this kind of thinking in societies.
religion is simply the most egregious offender today, and the most prominent problem. not to mention one of the most complex and difficult problems to approach.
Wait, so will approaching this difficult to approach problem address why this kid got kicked out of school? Will it have anything to do with that at all? Or will it just be the same fucking thread we always have here because you won't let the poor horse be? The poor horse Loren, just let it rest.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
you get a raised eyebrow if you think an ideology deserves the same protections as race.
What the fuck was the First Amendment all about then, eh?
The First Amendment protects your right to say whatever the fuck you want, but it doesn't protect you from criticism.
I meant the freedom of religion/protective elements of the Amendment. Free speech is a different matter.
i've never suggested taking away anyone's political freedom. you might have me confused with actual fundamentalists.
At least the gay part is clearly written-out and unambiguous and pretty fuckin explicit. If a man lays with a man as he lays with a woman, stone them both. I see no room for argument.
Regardless of what the history of christianity tells us and what people believe themselves. The modern day bible can't make it anymore clear. Christians who are not bigotted, are not because they know it's wrong.
Condom use is linked to the story of Onan. While not explicit, there is a connection.
A tenuous one at best.
I agree, which is why I brought it up, but this is the excuse the catholic church uses. And it's a dangerous idea to teach.
Killing people that are not of the same religion as you is almost an extention of the religion regardless of what the book itself says, because all religions claim to be right. It creates a messy situation.
Right, and the only way to argue or demonstrate that you're right is to kill everyone who disagrees with you.
Human nature demands that is only a matter of time until someone does.
Let's say we go back a couple thousand years, take religion out of the middle east. Human history would be vastly changed, so to say that religion merely covers up human indiscretions instead of creating them is patently false.
No one's arguing that going back in time and removing religion won't lead to a completely different world today. We're arguing whether it will lead to a better world. Different is not better nor worse. You have yet to provide any evidence that your timeline will be better.
I want you to read what I said very carefully and I typed out what I said with just as much care. I never said it would be better, I said it would be different. So don't ask for proof that it would be better, it's not what I claimed. But a lot of people at the beginning of thread were simply saying that human beings were the cause of strife, but using religion as an excuse. If you can agree with my example, it shows that religion is what caused people to act this way. Religion is the root cause for the unrest in the mideast. It is not simply a scapegoat. In my religionless world, there might still be unrest, but for different reasons and different areas perhaps. Then you could point to those reasons and call them the root cause.
People will always have things to fight about and hate each other over, but the less reasons there are, the better off we are.
Right, eliminating something because it's something people fight over makes sense. Let's get rid of money, love, nations, races, sex, power, and those damn kids who won't get off my lawn while we're at it.
Believe it or not, religion is not a necessity of human society any more.
Posts
There's plenty of secular reasons to make other people consider it immoral!
I don't know what they are. I'm sure they're there, though.
so, religion isn't a motivating factor at all.
gotcha.
Etc.
good luck! it should be easy to prove me wrong. i was pretty categorical.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101
I just spotted this on fark and my excellent memory remembered this topic from a while back. I laughed out loud quite hard indeed
EDIT: Wow i feel stupid for rushing in a posting this so fast. I thought this was the original topic. I sorry for idiotness.
I don't think it was really an "art school" in the way that we generally think of them. It seems to have been something like an art/ design version of DeVry's or Strayer. Not exactly the Academy, and their rather brusque dismissal of this guy reminds me a lot of the way a business would function as opposed to academia.
family planning, education, women's rights, gay rights, pornography, foreign policy, environmental policy.
if someone stops believing in god, are they going to adhere to the tenants of their religion?
i know far too many fundamentalists who aren't assholes. they're wrong-- very wrong --about a great many things in life, but they're not assholes because of it. they are cloistered and ignorant, but they aren't fundamentalist out of some vindictive need to oppress. some may be. many may be, for that matter, but it's inane to throw that kind of judgment on that many people and just cast them all as assholes. they aren't.
However I can say it does seem a bit extreme to completely expell someone (over EVERYTHING).
Ah well.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I'm a religious guy and I don't believe in banning condoms or gay marrige or killing all them durka durkas
and i never suggested you did. i'm talking about fundamentalists. the people who do lend their holy text a certain amount of reverence and acceptance as a moral authority.
Yes, because our holy text very clearly says we have to believe in banning condoms and gay marriage and kill all them durka durkas. We're really rejecting its moral authority by not following these clearly-written-out, unambiguous, explicit commandments.
:P
While everyone is pointing out the guy's ulterior motives and twistings, the school obviously has a vested interest and wants to cover its ass. It is not beyond them to lie/distort the number and severity of complaints against him.
Let's not be so quick to pile on him despite the fact that he is annoying.
So, get rid of religion to get rid of the fundamentalists. Nevermind the people that have a genuine desire for faith, that aren't assholes.
It's not like it's hard to make up a new justification for being a douche.
Look, what the world needs more of is tolerance and understanding. It needs people to have open minds and to challenge their belief structures - I agree with you guys there. But why should it matter if those changes come hand in hand with religion? Why should we turn back a future Martin Luther King or Ghandi because they believe in things that they cannot justify to your satisfaction?
Loren, my problem with your argument isn't that it's wrong, it's just that it's so fundamentally intellectually lazy. You're so hell-bend accusing religion with everything bad that you're blind to it's good aspects, or the neutral/inoffensive aspects that don't affect you. You have some valid grievances, but you take the intellectually easy route all the time.
If you substituted the word "fundamentals" with the word "blacks" in your little rants, you'd be banned from this board in an instant. Your understanding of the way the world works is pretty shallow, from what you demonstrate every time we have a religious thread. You're not interested in compromise, and you're not interested in critically looking at how you think.
I advocate the continued push towards eliminating or working against illogical thinking in all of its forms.
Will it make the world a perfect place? No.
Will it leave some things like most mono and polytheistic religions by the wayside? Yes.
Might people be illogical regardless? Of course, but that doesn't make an effort to work against that disengenuous or naive.
funny, i don't think you've read anything i've typed at all.
-i have never indicated that religion is the source of all human ills, or anything of the sort. my argument is that it is a subset of the greater problems of dogma and nonemperical belief.
-i have frequently noted that religion had good aspects, and benign and neutral aspects. my argument is that they do not matter, as there are secular alternatives that do not have the baggage of needing to believe in anything on insufficient evidence.
look at previous threads to read up on my arguments.
you get a raised eyebrow if you think an ideology deserves the same protections as race. if you think religions don't influence individuals, or that beliefs are meaningless. it's perfectly rational to fear a coherent, political ideology, particularly one as virulent and dangerous as fundamentalism. there is no analogy to be made to racism here. you could make an analogy to republicans and democrats, perhaps.
At least the gay part is clearly written-out and unambiguous and pretty fuckin explicit. If a man lays with a man as he lays with a woman, stone them both. I see no room for argument. Condom use is linked to the story of Onan. While not explicit, there is a connection.
Killing people that are not of the same religion as you is almost an extention of the religion regardless of what the book itself says, because all religions claim to be right. It creates a messy situation.
Let's say we go back a couple thousand years, take religion out of the middle east. Human history would be vastly changed, so to say that religion merely covers up human indiscretions instead of creating them is patently false.
People will always have things to fight about and hate each other over, but the less reasons there are, the better off we are.
i have yet to see anything outside of wild speculation that anything of the sort is taking place.
Well I didn't mention how one would go about attempting to change the world for the better.
I'm no Dawkins.
Also, if I introduce a little doubt into people's worlds, just like if they introduce doubt into mine, that's a healthy thing. People should be encouraged to think critically. I don't think you have enough evidence that fundamentalists turn that way because of experiences where they had an atheist politely argue with them to make that claim here.
Fundamentalists choose how to think. People don't choose their race. Critical thinking is not the acceptence of all ideas. It's taking each idea on it's own merits and deciding if it's good or not. Religion is not a good idea, at least not anymore. I've critically thought about it for a long time.
What the fuck was the First Amendment all about then, eh?
But, as people have pointed out - to call for the abolishment of religion does not address the root issues of the fundamentalist mindset, and it can have adverse affects, too.
Well then, don't be religious. Hell, if you want, go out and preach the word of aethism. Don't expect anyone to love you for it, though - you'll just be the secular equivalent of a door-knocking Mormon.
As much as you may think, you haven't discovered the secret to social harmony. Getting rid of religion will not do anything to make people less close-minded and illogical.
The First Amendment protects your right to say whatever the fuck you want, but it doesn't protect you from criticism.
No one is calling for a ban or abolishment, simply moving away from the idea and the only way to do so is to make it clear that the idea itself can be moved away from.
We didn't ban racism, but we moved away from it once people realized that they could and there was a reason to do so.
I meant the freedom of religion/protective elements of the Amendment. Free speech is a different matter.
I believe that you are wrong. I'll continue the example that racism has forth for us. We moved away from racism incredibly rapidly. While it's not extinct and will likely never be, it gave a lot of people one less reason to be close-minded and illogical. Society changed for the better. I'm not looking for the end all be all solution for social harmony, but you don't seem to think it can exist or is worth trying to acheive at all.
abolishment of religion is a side effect of the greater problem of dogma and nonemperical belief, which i am, of course, against. religion is simply the most widely accepted and, possibly with the exception of tribalism, the most deeply ingrained species of this kind of thinking in societies.
religion is simply the most egregious offender today, and the most prominent problem. not to mention one of the most complex and difficult problems to approach.
No one is talking about taking away freedom of religion. But, just like speech, just because you are free to be whatever religion you want, doesn't mean it's above criticism. Any choice(religion is a choice) is subject to criticism. Race is not, because it is not a choice.
A tenuous one at best.
Right, and the only way to argue or demonstrate that you're right is to kill everyone who disagrees with you.
No one's arguing that going back in time and removing religion won't lead to a completely different world today. We're arguing whether it will lead to a better world. Different is not better nor worse. You have yet to provide any evidence that your timeline will be better.
Right, eliminating something because it's something people fight over makes sense. Let's get rid of money, love, nations, races, sex, power, and those damn kids who won't get off my lawn while we're at it.
i've never suggested taking away anyone's political freedom. you might have me confused with actual fundamentalists.
it's bedtime. so i may have to.
and had it comin'
i mean his power level...
it was over nine thousand
I agree, which is why I brought it up, but this is the excuse the catholic church uses. And it's a dangerous idea to teach.
Human nature demands that is only a matter of time until someone does.
I want you to read what I said very carefully and I typed out what I said with just as much care. I never said it would be better, I said it would be different. So don't ask for proof that it would be better, it's not what I claimed. But a lot of people at the beginning of thread were simply saying that human beings were the cause of strife, but using religion as an excuse. If you can agree with my example, it shows that religion is what caused people to act this way. Religion is the root cause for the unrest in the mideast. It is not simply a scapegoat. In my religionless world, there might still be unrest, but for different reasons and different areas perhaps. Then you could point to those reasons and call them the root cause.
Believe it or not, religion is not a necessity of human society any more.