Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People who don't want you to fully discuss are never your true good friend.
Currently, many public places that serve "secular peace" do indeed outlaw/censure "bashing" religion or even the lack of it (although the religious get tax-free havens to bash the nonreligious according to various tax-laws). This means that no one can publicly say anything that can be interpreted as a "negative bash" on either theistic religions/philosophies or atheistic philosophies/religions or some of their worst founders or worst participants.
So, only good things can be said for any religious and anti/non-religious idea.
Is that even a discussion, though? Is that even learning anything other than positive propaganda for two competing and contradicting camps?
Are we really playing by fair and proper rules? Or are we just following invisible market forces: supply and demand?
Spoiler
[TS 20:50] defending an ideology [the details of it, rather than just labels] you've never scrutinized is absurd
The Greeks/Romans used to believe that Hades/Pluto, the rich Father, ruled over wealth, including the investments into the afterlife. Hades means "invisible" and he was a part of the "brotherly trinity" with the Sky Father (Zeus/Jupiter), Ocean/Earth Father (Poseidon/Neptune), and Under-earth Father (Hades/Pluto).
In such a politically correct environment, that is all I could say about that. If I wrote anything negative about such believes, I would be labeled a "basher" and shut-down (supposedly, although someone would have to first report, I'm sure).
In such a case we can't say anything even possibly perceived as bad about polytheism, idolatry, bibliolatry, monotheism, anti-agnostic religious founders, anti-religious fascist dictators, and on and on. What is this?
As George Orwell hinted his dystopian book, 1984, it is not right for people to be repelled by any train of thought capable of leading to an analytical and skeptical direction.
What good purpose does it serve for someone to be shut-out rather than properly argued against? It's pure ignorance, pure delusional bliss.
I think that would only obtain in a society where one religion controlled the government, effectively and could ban anything it considered disrespectful - which would pretty much be anything criticizing their religion. They might possibly allow a bit of discussion of the Other side, but carefully managed so that it was made to look very quickly lige a Hog's breakfast in short order.
That incidentally is what we would get if we had creationist teachers in school 'teaching the controversy'. It would be managed so all you heard was One side.
As it is, everyone can put their side freely (you can tell that by all the Creationist and Bible -truth apologetic videos on the Internet) and people are able - if they want to - look at both sides.
I have had a look at a couple of vids claiming to debunk evolution ("even scientists agree") or prove the bible, but just 5 minutes in, it's just the same old debunked lies.
These comments of mine are NOT respectful, nor should they be. But they are allowed here, and should be, on one of the more tightly moderated forums (some see to be a melee of insult and flaming). It is a reminder (and should be, in view of a lot of rather negative comments about America and its' society) of what you gave achieved and made an example to the world (including the UK) who can only emulate you or dearly wish they could, were it not for a government, dictator or Theocracy they would love to get rid of, but can't.
Arach asked about vids on 'forming beliefs'. The thread he asked on is closed, I think (it shouldn't happen here so long as we critique, but don't bash -religion.) This was something I recalled. It does talk from the atheist point of view, but explain a lot about the way beliefs are built.
Arach of course believed that Some atheists (something I believe he called 'Milli- fundy'. Sounds like some kind on segmented insect) do this. So all can watch and ask "Am I doing cognitive dissonance? Or am I bei ng rational?'
... The thread he asked on is closed, I think (it shouldn't happen here so long as we critique, but don't bash -religion.) This was something I recalled. ...
What does it mean to "bash" something verbally? What I found out is that it means "to deal a heavy blow" and "bashing" means "severe criticism" in these respects. Yet, any good arguments would "deal heavy blows" and any good criticism would be "severe [=very great]"
By outlawing "bashing" are they outlawing "strong arguments/criticisms"? Or are they simply using the wrong word and mean to say that they are outlawing unsubstantiated rude/mean comments about particular religions? Isn't that called "flaming" and not "bashing" then?
It's not completely clear what the original post was about, but here are two thoughts:
1) We have the freedom, right, and liberty in this country to think as we want. And as long as it does not result in violence or law-breaking, there is no issue. So, we can think and say whatever we want about any religious or non-religious matter. We can disagree with others and other's views. So, what's the problem?
2) We are not "forced to serve" anything. OP - What specifically are you saying we forced to serve? Are you confusing "serving" with "agreeing with" or "accepting"? There is a big difference between them.
People who don't want you to fully discuss are never your true good friend.
Currently, many public places that serve "secular peace" do indeed outlaw/censure "bashing" religion or even the lack of it (although the religious get tax-free havens to bash the nonreligious according to various tax-laws). This means that no one can publicly say anything that can be interpreted as a "negative bash" on either theistic religions/philosophies or atheistic philosophies/religions or some of their worst founders or worst participants.
So, only good things can be said for any religious and anti/non-religious idea.
Is that even a discussion, though? Is that even learning anything other than positive propaganda for two competing and contradicting camps?
Are we really playing by fair and proper rules? Or are we just following invisible market forces: supply and demand?
Spoiler
[TS 20:50] defending an ideology [the details of it, rather than just labels] you've never scrutinized is absurd
The Greeks/Romans used to believe that Hades/Pluto, the rich Father, ruled over wealth, including the investments into the afterlife. Hades means "invisible" and he was a part of the "brotherly trinity" with the Sky Father (Zeus/Jupiter), Ocean/Earth Father (Poseidon/Neptune), and Under-earth Father (Hades/Pluto).
In such a politically correct environment, that is all I could say about that. If I wrote anything negative about such believes, I would be labeled a "basher" and shut-down (supposedly, although someone would have to first report, I'm sure).
In such a case we can't say anything even possibly perceived as bad about polytheism, idolatry, bibliolatry, monotheism, anti-agnostic religious founders, anti-religious fascist dictators, and on and on. What is this?
As George Orwell hinted his dystopian book, 1984, it is not right for people to be repelled by any train of thought capable of leading to an analytical and skeptical direction.
What good purpose does it serve for someone to be shut-out rather than properly argued against? It's pure ignorance, pure delusional bliss.
well, they shut out people they can't properly argue against don't they?
honesty, within one self and their place is big. But we have to wrap that all up in being human. we all are human first and we are all not the exact same in this humanness.
see me being accused of bigotry in using the above notion elsewhere. all because I say we can put people traits to numbers. I mean its not pretty and its scary, but its true. they won't argue it because many of them can't and many are afraid of what it tells them about themselves. There a host of reasons and these reasons can be in a mixture.
Toss in addiction, abuse, and mental illness Luminous. what do you think happens with these mixtures?
Spiritually thinking Most truths of the unseen spirit is poorly discerned in the natural mind , like Christian believers can warn people of the pit falls , and they would be considered hate ideas , and judging others ..... The Pastor of my church said he needs to tell people of the sin that they may be following because He loves those people , and wants the best for them , like telling a little child to not play in the streets , and the child would say `don`t tell me what to do` .... So there are many different ideas which people believe .... Still there are some in this age which condemn racism , and judge every one are racist by the color of the skin or the politics that they support where they are indeed in error
It's not completely clear what the original post was about, but here are two thoughts:
1) We have the freedom, right, and liberty in this country to think as we want. And as long as it does not result in violence or law-breaking, there is no issue. So, we can think and say whatever we want about any religious or non-religious matter. We can disagree with others and other's views. So, what's the problem?
2) We are not "forced to serve" anything. OP - What specifically are you saying we forced to serve? Are you confusing "serving" with "agreeing with" or "accepting"? There is a big difference between them.
There is a not of emotive language here, and I may be getting into deep water. Essentially what it comes down to is what we are taught (education/ indoctrination - whatever). We end up willing "slaves", if you will, to the society we are taught. The Chains are social pressure. The can be light chains of need to be moral, help the poor, feel good, not upset the family, or the heavier ones. Obligation, exploitation and abrogation of your time, when you might prefer to be doing something else.
If we understand why, we are more or less Willing Slaves. We work to live in an easier fashion than if we had to hunt or forage.
We may serve in politics because we feel it matters. We may serve as conscripts in time of war, because it is survival. We pay taxes for our social infrastructure.
Where the chains of religion get heavy is where you pay taxes for nothing. Taxes of money, time and freedom of thought. You need to be sure you are getting something more for your mental dollars than an a manifesto of promises for an election that never happens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
