• [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 3 feb 2008, 19:50

    The True Enemy

    Institutional religion, or religion itself?

    Discuss

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 3 feb 2008, 21:08
    Organised religion.

    If people want to believe, that's their problem. Not mine. I have my own beliefs myself.

    Problems only start when that belief gets abused by a group to harm others.

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 4 feb 2008, 02:32
    There is no enemy anywhere. (Just other people trying to make sense of their lives.)

    • SpHaeR sa...
    • Användare
    • 4 feb 2008, 10:27
    There is no enemy anywhere. (Just other people trying to make sense of their lives.)
    SpHaeR concurs.

    I do however object to people deciding for others what the sense of their lives is. That's why it is important to teach children in school about all (major) religions so they have something to think about when their parents or any other proselytizing force is trying to put them in a certain religious tract. These prosoletyzing forces usually only do what they think is best too, and to cure that they need to open up to the philosophies of others.

    More commonly known as Waldheri

    Questioning all your answers since 1988
    "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish" - David Hume
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 4 feb 2008, 20:36
    Personally, I think it's a bit of both. Sure people should be free to practice their own religion, no matter how rediculous, but to what extent? Should those certain sects of Islam really be free to opress their women, forcing them into domestic slavery and not allowing them to appear in public without a Veil? As far as I'm concerned, certain sects of certain religions need to be stamped out, people should only be entitled to freedom as long as they respect the freedom of other people. Personally, I think laws should be made against religious Indoctrination and Oppression. If you can't respect other peoples freedom, then yours is taken away. Fair play as far as I'm concerned.

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 5 feb 2008, 01:55
    Is rule of law really the most effective way of stamping out those religions? Has it worked before? Do you trust any current government to chose the right religions?


  • There is no enemy anywhere. (Just other people trying to make sense of their lives.)
    SpHaeR concurs.


    I concur with the concur.

    However, I will actively oppose all who try to take away the freedom of others to choose, and the means to make an informed choice. I'm all for a laissez-faire policy on religion and ethics as long as the policy is mutual.

    And as for legal interference, if laws should be made in regards to religion, they should only be the ground laws that affirm church and state to be AND STAY separate.

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
    • SpHaeR sa...
    • Användare
    • 5 feb 2008, 08:04
    Quoth RageofAnath:
    I will actively oppose all who try to take away the freedom of others to choose, and the means to make an informed choice
    I suggest teaching children about all the major religion and some minor in school - just facts, no judgements. It will help children give a perspective when their parents try to press their own religion on them.

    The problem with making laws is that it is very hard to draw a line. You can be free to be muslim, but can you be free to wear a veil all the time? Can you be free to be a christian, but can you be free to teach your students evolution is wrong?

    Separation of state and church can help decide on such matters a lot. As soon as public schools have rid themselves of the religious background noises, I think the new generation of students will have a better chance of making informed decisions about religion.

    More commonly known as Waldheri

    Questioning all your answers since 1988
    "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish" - David Hume
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 5 feb 2008, 13:34
    LouIsImmortal said:
    Personally, I think it's a bit of both. Sure people should be free to practice their own religion, no matter how rediculous, but to what extent? Should those certain sects of Islam really be free to opress their women, forcing them into domestic slavery and not allowing them to appear in public without a Veil?


    In their bush or desert countries they can do what they want as far as I'm concerned. If you want to send an army in to "liberate" them, you've seen what happens in Iraq.

    But if they come here, they should assimilate at least to the basic foundations of our culture: constitution, Human Rights, all that stuff. If they don't want to, they can disagree all they want with our human rights over in their third world countries.

    You can be free to be muslim, but can you be free to wear a veil all the time?

    As long as it's in their own countries, sure.

    And if they want to do it here, only as long as it's the woman's own free choice. The freedom to dress as you want, unless it causes public exposure, is a freedom I like very much, thank you.

  • Well, the problem is this really. It's an oppressive form they are using against women, that's a fact. Women aren't equally worth as men are in these countries because the rulse is Patriarchal just like the Western world has been and thus women also here have a lower worth.

    The thing is, when you get so indoctrinized, you don't realize it. You think it's freedom when it isn't really freedom at all. You should ofc be free to choose to believe or not but I just think a woman who undercasts herself to such beliefs limits her freedom.

    It might be so hard for them to understand this though because it goes against a norm that has existed for thousands of years and it doesn't go away that easily.

    There are similar things here in the Western world too, that females weren't allowed to wear pants for example. Neither sit cross on a horse... but we have managed to work away those things, they haven't done that as well in Muslim countries.

    I do hope though that since we have more international trade now these habits might change so the religion might soften up and people can realize they can be whatever they want and are free to be how they want and still be religious.

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 9 feb 2008, 17:47
    I should probably add: my not considering other people to be my enemies doesn't mean I don't have disagreements with them. And I'm all about some womens rights. But violent or imposed government actions don't seem to be the most effective means of creating equality when you look at the historical trends. Increasing the number of families above poverty level and increasing women's access to education seems to have larger effects on equality. For example, a Kinsey Institute study from a few years ago showed that those things predicted use of contraceptives better than religious affiliations.

    Islam, either the religion or organized institutions, isn't the enemy. Its just like any other element of human culture: it changes as the context changes. Like Christianity, there are already incredibly diverse practices on a liberal-conservative scale (e.g., some Muslim cultures' ideas of hijab would be positively scandalous by others' standards). There will always be pockets of resistance, but they'll become the exception if we can improve the average person's quality of life.

    Redigerat av en raderad användare den 10 feb 2008, 02:52
  • mirrorpool said:
    Is rule of law really the most effective way of stamping out those religions? Has it worked before? Do you trust any current government to chose the right religions?


    Every attempt at banning religion coercively has failed miserably, only strengthening the religion. See christianity during the early Roman period or under the communist countries.

    I don't care what a person's beliefs are so long as they don't start pushing their beliefs onto others.

    Tourism is sin and travel on foot is virtue-Werner Herzog
    • Yojinbo sa...
    • Användare
    • 10 feb 2008, 12:41
    SpHaeR sagte:
    There is no enemy anywhere. (Just other people trying to make sense of their lives.)
    SpHaeR concurs.

    I do however object to people deciding for others what the sense of their lives is. That's why it is important to teach children in school about all (major) religions so they have something to think about when their parents or any other proselytizing force is trying to put them in a certain religious tract. These prosoletyzing forces usually only do what they think is best too, and to cure that they need to open up to the philosophies of others.


    During my school time that happened. We had Christianity, Islam, Judaism(? the religion of the jews I mean), ancient Egypt, ancient Greek mythology and Buddhism a little during our religion class.
    After that we could pick Philosophy instead of Religion if we wanted to. Religion basically went deeper into the religions already discussed while in Philosophy class we talked about the interesting stuff; metaphysics, ethic and epistemology for example.

    We had one fag in our Philosophy class who believed in God and defended his believes while most of the time having poor arguments, which was sad. It would have been more interesting if he had come up with some real good stuff.

  • organized religion and religion having political and social power is a major problem but if people want to have religious beliefs and keep them to themselves, i support them 100%

    -Barabas
  • i think the enemy is religion itself

    • Tf4rdy sa...
    • Användare
    • 4 mar 2008, 20:22
    mirrorpool pisze:
    There is no enemy anywhere. (Just other people trying to make sense of their lives.)

    This is the enemy we are talking about. Trying to find something, that doesn't really exist despite biological aspect. It doesn't exist until we create it by our own(I mean something like - to live life you can be proud of/to help other people/to do something, what will be remembered by many, etc.) But not this stupid, irracional beliefs, that "you will be rewarded after life on Earth". This is aurea medicriates that almost all people don't realize... It's sad, but I'm afraid that never 100% of human population would find this truth out.

    - Móżdżku, co będziemy robić dziś wieczorem?
    - To samo co zwykle, Pinki. To co zwykle. Spróbujemy opanować świat!


  • I had that discussion once. A guy could not accept the thought there still could be purpose in life without an afterlife. The purpose is what you make it. If your purpose is to live so you can get to an afterlife that is a purpose. But does it mean an Atheist then must live completely purposeless? Yes, if they choose to although doesn't sound that logical because then you would just sit straight in your chair waiting to die without caring to drink and eat or anything.

    As I know, only truly apathic people do that, and those indeed, have completely lost their sense of purpose in life where death is the only solution and answer.

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 21 mar 2008, 20:03
    religion is the enemy, religion was made up to explain things and is now how everything is based off, religion is terrible and especially when it is being forced on someone, my family is religious but i find christianity is a disease, all religions are the same, you worship something or things and there is some sort of after life

    well that may sound like a rant, because it is

    • db0 sa...
    • Användare
    • 25 mar 2008, 00:52
    My reply is here

    It is fortunate that what is necessary, is easy to acquire and what is difficult to have, is not necessary - Epicurus.
    Whenever you get randomly killed, the simplest and most logical solution is that it was probably ninja - Occam's Katana.


Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.