Strange Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Or banning computer programming because some software engineers were murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Or banning all soldiers because a few of them killed innocents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Or banning football because a handful of fans cause violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 But that lacks context. You can name a few incidents, which make the news because they are rare events. But how many wrongful deaths occur that aren't motivated by religion? Taxing religious organizations will not do very much to quell belief by individuals. It may make things worse, because now these people will feel (more) persecuted. And why would countries that basically theocracies implement this? Manchester does not lack context, these terrorist events are becoming less rare. This thread is about religion not accidents in the work place, or politicians trying to police the world and force regime changes. People can live happily without religion, religion is not needed by anyone, other than those that have been indoctrinated and allow it to ruin their lives. Religion is not meant to give people a reason for living, it is simply a tool used to control people or order some societies. Today it is tool that is being allowed to get out of control, and used by fanatics to justify murder. In its benign form many people enjoy a sense of community, these groups pay tax for everything else in life, why not pay tax for religious donations. In its malignant or evangelical form religion eats at society and different cultures like a cancer subjugating weak minded people. Pope Pious ?? stated the Jesus myth has served them well, people need to know its a myth, and stop ruining their lives or the lives of others through some misguided belief system. Considering the lack of evidence for the existence of Jesus and apparently Moses as well, I think removing the tax exempt status of religion should be a priority, backdating the taxation may alleviate the debt burden some countries carry, and benefit the whole of society. Is the status quo the way to go, to avoid offending religious people, whose religion is the seed for extremism? Why deny the millions of people who find solace in their religion, because of a few extremists who use it as an excuse to justify there political aspirations? That's like banning cars because a few idiots drive irresponsibly. Many people find comfort in religion and taking hard drugs, it does not mean that taking either should be tolerated by society. Idiots driving cars have to pass exams which are meant to ensure that at least they know the rules of the road. They know they are breaking the law when they drive like idiots, and pay taxes for the petrol the consume etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 People can live happily without religion, religion is not needed by anyone, other than those that have been indoctrinated and allow it to ruin their lives. Perhaps, but it is not for you to determine what is or is not needed for another person to lead a fulfilling life. Is the status quo the way to go, to avoid offending religious people, whose religion is the seed for extremism? The seed of extremism lies in the human condition: religion is but one vessel in which it can dwell. The sooner we realise this the sooner we may look inside ourselves to stop it manifesting at the source. Is the status quo the way to go, to avoid offending religious people, whose religion is the seed for extremism? I don't think anyone here is motivated by a wish to not offend people - this 'you're just politically correct' stance is fast becoming a device to avoid addressing points in the same way some people take offence just to avoid actually discussing a point. Personally i'm motivated by a right for people to determine what they think best for themselves (that includes hard drugs and religion), and that simply banning religion will not have the effect you think it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 Or banning football because a handful of fans cause violence. I am not aware of football hooligans deliberately killing children who most likely don't support any opposing football team or religion. I notice your picture shows an interest in Buddhism, many religious extremists don't regard Buddhism as a religion, because many Buddhists have no god. If extremist islam is allowed to advance how do you think Buddhists living in Islamic countries would fare. Do you still believe the status quo is the way to go, or would you like to spread your Buddhist beliefs in these countries. Would it be better in areas where religion differences cause violence to allow the religious folk to meet. If there is a chance of a football riot then football matches are cancelled Perhaps, but it is not for you to determine what is or is not needed for another person to lead a fulfilling life. The seed of extremism lies in the human condition: religion is but one vessel in which it can dwell. The sooner we realise this the sooner we may look inside ourselves to stop it manifesting at the source. I don't think anyone here is motivated by a wish to not offend people - this 'you're just politically correct' stance is fast becoming a device to avoid addressing points in the same way some people take offence just to avoid actually discussing a point. Personally i'm motivated by a right for people to determine what they think best for themselves (that includes hard drugs and religion), and that simply banning religion will not have the effect you think it would. By perhaps I assume you agree. I do not find religious extremists enhance my life at all, and I am pretty sure the families of the dead in Manchester don't either. The point of the thread is religion, many points above have nothing to do with the thread. OK I guess you are an Anarchist Buddhist, who believes in Darwinian natural selection of the species. In which case blowing people up and allowing weak minded people to harm themselves and others around them is no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 OK I guess you are an Anarchist Buddhist, who believes in Darwinian natural selection of the species. In which case blowing people up and allowing weak minded people to harm themselves and others around them is no problem. I'm a christian. I should be banned for my "violent" beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Manchester does not lack context, these terrorist events are becoming less rare. This thread is about religion not accidents in the work place, or politicians trying to police the world and force regime changes. You say it does not lack context, and yet you have provided none. I asked a question, and it had nothing to do with accidents in the workplace. Do you have an answer? And yes, that answer might include politics. If you confine this to religion you are actively cherry-picking the data. Can you show that these events are becoming more common? How many of these genocides were motivated by religion, in comparison to the total? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history People can live happily without religion, religion is not needed by anyone, other than those that have been indoctrinated and allow it to ruin their lives. Religion is not meant to give people a reason for living, it is simply a tool used to control people or order some societies. Today it is tool that is being allowed to get out of control, and used by fanatics to justify murder. In its benign form many people enjoy a sense of community, these groups pay tax for everything else in life, why not pay tax for religious donations. In its malignant or evangelical form religion eats at society and different cultures like a cancer subjugating weak minded people. Who are you to tell people what they need? As for the taxes, it's actually (in part) tied into your observation that religion can be used for control, and has been used by governments to extend their reach. The separation of religion from government is one outcome of the past, in order to limit government control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Who are you to tell people what they need? Yes. And, for that matter, who is anyone to tell others what they need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I am not aware of football hooligans deliberately killing children who most likely don't support any opposing football team or religion. I notice your picture shows an interest in Buddhism, many religious extremists don't regard Buddhism as a religion, because many Buddhists have no god. If extremist islam is allowed to advance how do you think Buddhists living in Islamic countries would fare. Do you still believe the status quo is the way to go, or would you like to spread your Buddhist beliefs in these countries. Would it be better in areas where religion differences cause violence to allow the religious folk to meet. If there is a chance of a football riot then football matches are cancelled Yes, i'm Buddhist, though the real motivation behind my avatar is a small part to try to reclaim the swastika from Nazi ideology. I don't care whether Buddhism is regarded a religion or not: either way i will still go to temple and stare at the wall for hours on end, as is my right. I agree extremist Islamic ideologies, such as Wahhabism, need curtailing. I do not agree that the way to do this is to ban all religion, or just ban Islam, for several reasons. I do not think it fair to punish the many for the acts of the few - or even punish the few for the acts of the many if you think all Muslims are the same old terrorists. People have the freedom to believe what they want. You want to stop that freedom. I disagree. Banning religion would just push it underground, not eliminate it. It totally misunderstands the nature of evil and how it manifests in human hearts. Banning religion will no more rid the world of terrorism than banning football would prevent hooliganism. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 It seems some people would like to keep it, and think religion should stay. Strawman. If you offer to burn my house down to kill the termites and I refuse, are you going to claim I must want the termites to stay? Yours is obviously an emotional stance you haven't reasoned out yet, and I think you should do that soon. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 Strawman. If you offer to burn my house down to kill the termites and I refuse, are you going to claim I must want the termites to stay? Yours is obviously an emotional stance you haven't reasoned out yet, and I think you should do that soon. What the hell is that meant to mean. If you haven't got something pertinent to write please don't. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I'd like to ban lack of comprehension of simple analogies. Maybe we start there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 Yes, i'm Buddhist, though the real motivation behind my avatar is a small part to try to reclaim the swastika from Nazi ideology. I don't care whether Buddhism is regarded a religion or not: either way i will still go to temple and stare at the wall for hours on end, as is my right. I agree extremist Islamic ideologies, such as Wahhabism, need curtailing. I do not agree that the way to do this is to ban all religion, or just ban Islam, for several reasons. I do not think it fair to punish the many for the acts of the few - or even punish the few for the acts of the many if you think all Muslims are the same old terrorists. People have the freedom to believe what they want. You want to stop that freedom. I disagree. Banning religion would just push it underground, not eliminate it. It totally misunderstands the nature of evil and how it manifests in human hearts. Banning religion will no more rid the world of terrorism than banning football would prevent hooliganism. The swastika is the symbol of many peoples not just the Nazis. Do you have any consistent ideas on policing or curtailing religious extremism. As you seem to want to maintain religious freedom. Extremists are already underground, many are thought by their friends and family to be nice people until they kill people, taxing religion would reduce the ability to fund other religious causes. Do you believe that ancient beliefs should be allowed to influence the way a modern human race behaves. My understanding of Buddhism, is that it is more to do with spirituality an afterlife or rebirth and the occult, than the worship of a god figure. I have no gripe against Buddhists that I can think of at the moment. However self harm I don't approve off, all things should be done in moderation, including alcohol. As for Hard drugs, I understand they can destroy your mind and cause people to stare at blank walls for hours on end. Cuidado I'd like to ban lack of comprehension of simple analogies. Maybe we start there. No, the thread is about religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Extremists are already underground, many are thought by their friends and family to be nice people until they kill people, taxing religion would reduce the ability to fund other religious causes. Maybe we should ban heroine and murder while we're at it. That'll stop all evil in this world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Do you have any consistent ideas on policing or curtailing religious extremism. As you seem to want to maintain religious freedom. You do what we're doing. You outlaw the acts of violence and pursue / punish people who commit them. That's regardless of reason - the fact that some acts of violence arise from the religious beliefs of the perpetrator(s) isn't really relevant. There's a huge number of Islamic people on the planet, and only a tiny fraction of them engage in terrorism. It makes no sense to attack all of them in fighting terrorism. Also, how exactly would your ban on religion work? I suppose you'd start by banning public religious ceremonies, but are you also going to ban the holding of beliefs? Are you going to monitor people in their homes so that you can know they don't say grace before dinner, encourage their kids to say prayers before bedtime, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 No, the thread is about religion. analogy əˈnalədʒi/ noun a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies" a correspondence or partial similarity. "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia" a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 You do what we're doing. You outlaw the acts of violence and pursue / punish people who commit them. That's regardless of reason - the fact that some acts of violence arise from the religious beliefs of the perpetrator(s) isn't really relevant. There's a huge number of Islamic people on the planet, and only a tiny fraction of them engage in terrorism. It makes no sense to attack all of them in fighting terrorism. Also, how exactly would your ban on religion work? I suppose you'd start by banning public religious ceremonies, but are you also going to ban the holding of beliefs? Are you going to monitor people in their homes so that you can know they don't say grace before dinner, encourage their kids to say prayers before bedtime, etc.? Religious atrocities have gone on for centuries. In a modern world do we have to put up with a blind belief that religion is to be accepted. If we maintain the status quo, we just get same shit on a different day, or ground hog day just repeating over and over again. The argument that not all religion is bad should not exclude religion from taxation, not everyone that drinks becomes an alcoholic or gets violent but alcohol is heavily taxed. Indoctrinating children into religion is how it gets embedded into peoples psyche, and should not be allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Well, whether or not to tax religious organizations is an entirely different question from whether to ban them. It's interesting to me that in another thread you argued for an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution (re: whether the government should involve itself in health care), but here you have a much more invasive opinion. I am not particularly religious myself; my defense of religious freedom is motivated by the second word in that phrase - freedom. Yes, some people do terrible things in the name of religion, and I want those people stopped. But there have also been people who turned away from a life of violence and harm to others by being "saved," as they put it. By banning religion completely you eliminate those events as well. Also, as someone pointed out above you really wouldn't succeed with an attempt to ban religion. You'd just drive it underground, out of sight, and you'd give the violence-prone folks amongst the religious all the more reason to hate and fight you. Unintended consequences would bite you in a major way. All that is secondary to me, though - the bottom line for me is that as long as someone isn't harming others then how that person lives their life is none of our business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) The argument that not all religion is bad should not exclude religion from taxation, not everyone that drinks becomes an alcoholic or gets violent but alcohol is heavily taxed. What exactly would you tax and how would you collect it? Indoctrinating children into religion is how it gets embedded into peoples psyche, and should not be allowed My father's a church of England lay-reader and as a child I was taken to church at least once a week, I'm now an atheist; so you're wrong, which often is the case for overly judgmental folk. Edited May 25, 2017 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 What the hell is that meant to mean.[?] You claimed that because some people don't want to ban religion that they must want it to stay, that they must want to keep it. That's either a strawman of the stance, or it's a false dilemma, both of which are logical fallacies, a bad place to build an argument. I don't participate in religion, and I know the only way to cure the ignorance it fosters is education, not denial. I can show why religion isn't necessary and hope to teach some reasoning ability, but if I just tell someone they can't worship the way they like they'll most likely get angry and dig in their heels and refuse to take the information in (much the way you're doing). It's an emotional stance, like the one you've taken against it. Your solution is neither reasoned nor reasonable, so in the end it's just as ignorant of reality as religion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 What the hell is that meant to mean. If you haven't got something pertinent to write please don't. Really? Are your reading comprehension skills really that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Really? Are your reading comprehension skills really that bad? Does he have comprehension skills capable of logically debating an argument to ban religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Tolkien and the Norse mythology together could not come up with a bigger troll than Handy Andy. The sad part after reading this thread is that everyone is still trying to convince a troll to think rationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Tolkien and the Norse mythology together could not come up with a bigger troll than Handy Andy. Cave troll. Guarantee you it has at least 8 feet on Handy Andy. Sorry. I'm a nerd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts