Torero Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Nazism is directly damaging others. Religion is not. I've been to multiple muslim countries of which two even with sharia law. I was treated very respectfully. And after learning that all this "terror threats" is nothing more than staged psy-ops by CIA and Mossad also that argument is lost. The difference between you and me seems to be that I am traveling the world and talk from first-hand experiences, while you seem to talk on the basis of (faked) "news" reports. By the way; I already live very happily in a country where the vast majority is religious and I am not. Has never been any problem. Don't take your own "news"(=psy-op) based paranoia for factual world views. Open your suitcase, passport and mind and you'll see the world is very different from what they tell you on those damn "news" channels... 1 3
dsayers Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Religion is not. Assertion. How do you know? Religion is not a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. It is inflicted upon helpless children by their parents (or people their parents expose them to). It is anti-rationality as it displaces rationality, making it a violation of the voluntarily created obligation to that child by its parents to protect and nurture it until such a time as they can do so without their parents. You cannot survive if you cannot differentiate fact from fiction, teddy bears from grizzly bears. 2
Mantis Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Assertion. How do you know? Religion is not a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. How do you know?
Koroviev Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 How do you know? Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 1
Mantis Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; That is sound advice isn't it Koroviev? 1
Torero Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Assertion. How do you know? Because a nazi speaks from hate. Hate because I happen to have a jewish name, although I am not jewish. On my proposal I was talking about in the Gold Donator forum which happened yesterday my mother-in-law called upon god to bless me. It's purely coming from good, nothing from bad or hate. Hence the ridiculousness of comparing nazism with religion a priori. Religion is not a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. So what? Love, taste and preferences are not based on any of those things in general. People are emotional beings, no robots who only base everything on reason, logic or evidence. It is inflicted upon helpless children by their parents (or people their parents expose them to). It is anti-rationality as it displaces rationality, making it a violation of the voluntarily created obligation to that child by its parents to protect and nurture it until such a time as they can do so without their parents. You cannot survive if you cannot differentiate fact from fiction, teddy bears from grizzly bears. Like I said; other people may have other experiences. You've outlined the horrors from your childhood in detail and I can only feel sorry for you that you had to experience that... But negative experiences from person A (you) do not cancel out positive or neutral experiences from person B (me). None of them is worth more either; they simply are different and therefore equally valid. 1
Thomasio Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 I'm extremely glad, I got a brain myself and don't have to rely on conditionless submission to an unquestionable dictator. Even if it were true, who could possibly wish to live an eternity under dictatorship and imagine that would be "heaven"?
gambitgareth Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 does anyone have a study link to divorce rates among the religions in comparison to those among secular / atheist / agnostic couples. i'd realy appreciate the outcome. ive seen western christians studies only and they aren't supporting my intuition that divorce among the religious occurs less often. your help would very much help me to cure my assumption.
shirgall Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 People are emotional beings, no robots who only base everything on reason, logic or evidence. No one can dictate how you feel, but how you behave towards others should be based on truth. The evolutionary advantage humankind has is from the abilities to learn, adapt, and pass on knowledge more efficiently than any other animal.
Thomasio Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 does anyone have a study link to divorce rates among the religions in comparison to those among secular / atheist / agnostic couples. i'd realy appreciate the outcome. ive seen western christians studies only and they aren't supporting my intuition that divorce among the religious occurs less often. your help would very much help me to cure my assumption. It's actually the other way around. By all studies I've seen from all over the world, divorce rates are higher among religious people, haven't cross checked all results I've seen, but I believe the divorce rate among strong religious people is about twice the rate of less strong and non believers. Unfortunately most of the ones I know are in German and refer to Europe, because I'm German and live in Italy, but here is one from the states: https://contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on-regional-divorce-rates/ I'm tempted to believe that the reason might be a MUCH higher rate of violence from men towards women in religious families, coming from the fact that in religious families many men see women as inferior, while in atheist families the idea of equal rights is more common.
Torero Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 I just met with a youth friend of my fiancee, a very catholic Colombian warm-hearted woman. According to some here I should have called her a "nazi" or any other horrible label. Statists are so much more dangerous than religious people. They defend Law, Guns and Indoctrination. Religion only has the latter. So who's more dangerous (both to mankind and to the FDR cause)?? 1 3
dsayers Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 According to some here I should have called her a "nazi" or any other horrible label. Prove it. Also, I think you "lose" the moment your point of origin for comparison is the State. Cancer is less harmful than the State, but that doesn't mean we should call it good.
Thomasio Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 The question isn't what's more dangerous, the question is, what's NOT dangerous and there religion isn't on the list.
Torero Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Is anyone being "desillusional" (my atheist and your label) "dangerous"? Not necessarily. She and sooo many other religious people I happen to have encountered in my life posed no threat, no danger to me. Their words were along the lines of "may god bless you", "only god knows why event X happened" or "may the love of god guide you". Those words are not threatening, dangerous or damaging in any way. I may disagree with the premise, as I see Nature as the guiding force (what I like in Stefans presentations as well), but if somebody else replaces that "force" with "god" that doesn't change anything. My comment about statism was more about efficiency. To fight religion in my opinion is a useless fight and a lost cause. It is so deeply rooted in someones personality that it makes no sense to oppose it. Directing our arrows at pseudo-rationality like statism is, is much more efficient and useful. Statism is much more dangerous as it hides behind a non-superstitial mask while it intrinsically is superstitious in its core. I remember a video of Stefan called "apologies to christianity" or something like that (mobile now so sorry for missing the exact words) and there was a lot of value in that. Fighting a rational war (as is what we're doing) on two fronts is less efficient than focusing on just that front that is directly damaging others, thus more dangerous. 2
Thomasio Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Those words are not threatening, dangerous or damaging in any way. I may disagree with the premise, as I see Nature as the guiding force (what I like in Stefans presentations as well), but if somebody else replaces that "force" with "god" that doesn't change anything. I believe you got that wrong. Religion is no thread as long as any religious idea is either a minority, or kept under control by things like the US constitution. What religion becomes, once it has the majority and is free to enforce its will on non believers is what you see these days in Saudi Arabia. The fact that 80-90% of all Muslims are peaceful doesn't make any kind of difference, the 10-20% radicals make the laws and the peaceful people close their eyes and quietly go along. That's not a Muslim problem, that's the same with Christians, countless examples in the past show, that Christian religion as well brings wide spread suffering over any population, as soon as it becomes state religion and the harmless peaceful Christians go along with whatever crime their radical leaders commit. 2
Torero Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 I believe you got that wrong. sharp. Religion is no thread as long as any religious idea is either a minority, or kept under control by things like the US constitution. What religion becomes, once it has the majority and is free to enforce its will on non believers is what you see these days in Saudi Arabia. The fact that 80-90% of all Muslims are peaceful doesn't make any kind of difference, the 10-20% radicals make the laws and the peaceful people close their eyes and quietly go along. That's not a Muslim problem, that's the same with Christians, countless examples in the past show, that Christian religion as well brings wide spread suffering over any population, as soon as it becomes state religion and the harmless peaceful Christians go along with whatever crime their radical leaders commit. Read your own text again and then think about this; The problems you describe are directly related to statism, not religion. I think you have no problems finding agreements here on the forum about the dangers of statism... Secondly, you mix two problems of statism now; - minority-driven leadership - majority-based democratic voting Indeed, both are problems of statism but not interchangeable. Leave statism out of all of this and "religion" just becomes something like taste of music, preference for a certain body type or smoking cigarettes; irrational and at most self-damaging; a horrible thing for left-wing statists but a right in a free society. Thanks for your illustrative post; you exactly underline what I say; fight Statism (useful), not Religion (useless). 2
dsayers Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 According to some here I should have called her a "nazi" or any other horrible label. Torero, much like this thread began, you have made an enormous claim here. You were challenged to substantiate it, and you are moving forward as if no challenge was made. For me, anything you've said beyond this that doesn't address this isn't worth my time.
Will Torbald Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Is anyone being "desillusional" (my atheist and your label) "dangerous"? Not necessarily. She and sooo many other religious people I happen to have encountered in my life posed no threat, no danger to me. Their words were along the lines of "may god bless you", "only god knows why event X happened" or "may the love of god guide you". Those words are not threatening, dangerous or damaging in any way. I may disagree with the premise, as I see Nature as the guiding force (what I like in Stefans presentations as well), but if somebody else replaces that "force" with "god" that doesn't change anything. My comment about statism was more about efficiency. To fight religion in my opinion is a useless fight and a lost cause. It is so deeply rooted in someones personality that it makes no sense to oppose it. Directing our arrows at pseudo-rationality like statism is, is much more efficient and useful. Statism is much more dangerous as it hides behind a non-superstitial mask while it intrinsically is superstitious in its core. I remember a video of Stefan called "apologies to christianity" or something like that (mobile now so sorry for missing the exact words) and there was a lot of value in that. Fighting a rational war (as is what we're doing) on two fronts is less efficient than focusing on just that front that is directly damaging others, thus more dangerous. Religious pity atheists like a lamb that's walking into a slaughter house. Of course they are nice to you. In their minds, you've sold your soul to Satan and are going to suffer for all eternity. They are just being condescending.
Thomasio Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Before I'm willing to believe in a dictator that makes me live for an eternity under his regime and even requests that during life on earth I already accept his dictatorship including a ton of disgusting commandments, I rather spend my life on earth in moral freedom, because then at least I have had a lifetime on earth without a dictator above me.
Torero Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Religious pity atheists like a lamb that's walking into a slaughter house. Neither am I a lamb, nor are they butchers. So your analogy fails on both sides. Of course they are nice to you. In their minds, you've sold your soul to Satan and are going to suffer for all eternity. They are just being condescending. Haha, you really believe that your amateur armchair "psychology" about people you do not even want to acquaint with has more value than "hands-on fieldwork, traveling and actually talking to real people in the real world?, eh? And do you realize that anti-theist propaganda is well-established in pro-statist societies? So who's the lamb assisting the butchers now?
Will Torbald Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Neither am I a lamb, nor are they butchers. So your analogy fails on both sides. Haha, you really believe that your amateur armchair "psychology" about people you do not even want to acquaint with has more value than "hands-on fieldwork, traveling and actually talking to real people in the real world?, eh? And do you realize that anti-theist propaganda is well-established in pro-statist societies? So who's the lamb assisting the butchers now? I live in Ecuador, very christian, catholic, JW, the works. I know how these people think, they're in my extended family, all around school and high school, and college. I've done the hands-on fieldwork.
Torero Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 I live in Ecuador, very christian, catholic, JW, the works. I know how these people think, they're in my extended family, all around school and high school, and college. I've done the hands-on fieldwork.Great, that makes us neighbours. Nobody, not even the very best psychiatrist with an additional degree in neurology can ever claim "to know how other people think", so that's an irrational unscientific, almost religious start. Which force do you think is more efficient and thus dangerous; the one led by Correa or by the Pope? Poppy has no guns and no laws. He only has words (indoctrination). The socialists have all three. And have you ever been called "Satanic" by your friends or extended family? Or how do you know they see you like that? And wouldn't it be time to ostracize them then? If my not less catholic friends of the northern neighbouring country of yours would start giving those signs, to me that would be the signal to ostracize.... 1
Will Torbald Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Great, that makes us neighbours. Nobody, not even the very best psychiatrist with an additional degree in neurology can ever claim "to know how other people think", so that's an irrational unscientific, almost religious start. Which force do you think is more efficient and thus dangerous; the one led by Correa or by the Pope? Poppy has no guns and no laws. He only has words (indoctrination). The socialists have all three. And have you ever been called "Satanic" by your friends or extended family? Or how do you know they see you like that? And wouldn't it be time to ostracize them then? If my not less catholic friends of the northern neighbouring country of yours would start giving those signs, to me that would be the signal to ostracize.... I'm not claiming ESP or anything, this is pretty much what they actually say and do. I've been to the theology classes in school, talked with them, and since I wasn't always an atheist, also understand it from the inside.
LibertarianSocialist Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 What isn't religion? Pick any man who calls himself an atheist, and I will show you a profoundly religious man. What man today lives his life completely free from the thick web of social superstitions brought up around him? What is society but an illusory collection of spooks, of arbitrary constructs? What is culture, with all its attendant traditions and mores, but the greatest of religions? What we know as religion, the worship of gods, is only a tiny fraction of religiosity. To truly overcome religion would be to crush out the last petty superstition, the last unfounded ritual, of the most mundane aspects of life. Such an authoritarian measure can never be achieved, should never, lest in trying to eradicate religiosity we erect our own gods. I'm watching the FDR channels, listening to the podcasts, and so much of what is said resonates well with me. The ideas of liberty, freedom, self-determination, all fit nicely into my worldview, doctrine, and faith (a fact which might shock some people). But then, in many of Stefan's videos, and certainly in most posts in this forum, the conclusion ends up being something like, "and that's why anyone with faith in the unseen is a bane to society and should be drug out into the street and shot." Huh? I'm an evangelical Christian of the Calvinist tradition. I'm a member of a church in the Presbyterian Church in America denomination. I won't go into detail about what I believe regarding theology, since that would be largely pointless, but I will say that I and my church believe that salvation and even faith in God is not something that I can import onto anyone else. That is an act only God can do (i.e. the blind cannot will themselves to see). With that said, I have 2 questions: 1) It seems that most of these discussions presuppose that is atheism very much a requirement in a free society and it must be enforced with an (ironic) religious-like fervor. Is this true? and 2) If it were true that the moral foundation supplied by a religion were in complete accord with one suggested by reason, logic, universally preferred behavior, non-aggression, etc., then wouldn't that religion be just as good a foundation for members in a free society? While this pertains to leftism, christian anarchists such as Tolstoy saw no contradiction between their personal religious beliefs and their support of an anarchistic society. In fact, I would go so far as saying anarchism is perhaps one of the most congruent philosophies with the teachings and practices of Jesus.
Des Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 athiest, Please edit your comment wrt the spelling of atheist.
hroc Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Youtube: Ekhart Tolle religion, for some insights on this mental construct we refer to as "religion"
hroc Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Assertion. How do you know? Religion is not a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. It is inflicted upon helpless children by their parents (or people their parents expose them to). It is anti-rationality as it displaces rationality, making it a violation of the voluntarily created obligation to that child by its parents to protect and nurture it until such a time as they can do so without their parents. You cannot survive if you cannot differentiate fact from fiction, teddy bears from grizzly bears.
Mister Mister Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; Also, one of my favorites, John 20:29 "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed."
DCLugi Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Also, one of my favorites, John 20:29 "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed." Great, that makes us neighbours. Nobody, not even the very best psychiatrist with an additional degree in neurology can ever claim "to know how other people think", so that's an irrational unscientific, almost religious start. Which force do you think is more efficient and thus dangerous; the one led by Correa or by the Pope? Poppy has no guns and no laws. He only has words (indoctrination). The socialists have all three. And have you ever been called "Satanic" by your friends or extended family? Or how do you know they see you like that? And wouldn't it be time to ostracize them then? If my not less catholic friends of the northern neighbouring country of yours would start giving those signs, to me that would be the signal to ostracize.... There are different degrees of dangerous. The one running at you with a meat cleaver. The one who supports the use of force against you. The one who scares children into conclusions without investigation. I've known religious people who don't pose a direct threat but our relationship can never be deep as there's always a short circuit in the connection.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 If you leave us alone then there's no problem. Maybe we've got to talk about you indoctrinating kids.
Thomasio Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 I would agree, indoctrinating kids is something a free society should talk about, but then, from where would a free society take the authority of telling people what they should or should not teach their kids? That doesn't seem to be anywhere near libertarian. Since I haven't made up my mind on this point yet, maybe you guys in here could share your opinion? If a free society cannot and should not tell people what they do with their kids, how would a free society prevent itself from being overtaken by religious laws?
shirgall Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 If a free society cannot and should not tell people what they do with their kids, how would a free society prevent itself from being overtaken by religious laws? Individuals in a free society will express strong opinions about what someone foists upon it, and will be free to stop doing business with them if they are clearly a problem, or creating a problem. And stop talking to them. And might even spread information and protest to make sure everyone else knows about them.
Torero Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 There are different degrees of dangerous. The one running at you with a meat cleaver. The one who supports the use of force against you. The one who scares children into conclusions without investigation. I've known religious people who don't pose a direct threat but our relationship can never be deep as there's always a short circuit in the connection. Of course you're right that not every danger is the same. And that there are religious people of different religions who use their beliefs as sticks, not as mere guidelines, is also true. That it's not black and white and religious people can behave as scare-mongerers and loving at the same time as well. That is contradictory of course; if you use one hand to love and tender and the other hand to slap and scare it's not love and tender anymore. My point is that that isn't the case for all religious people. There are litterally billions of people who hold religious beliefs in the world. Generalising all of them is a bit difficult, especially without knowing them. "If you don't believe in [my] God, you will go to Hell" "If you do not do X, God will punish you" etc. are examples of what you describe as "scaring children into conclusions without investigation". But what about: "God cares about you, he loves you" "May God bless you" "God's ways give you strength in life" etc. In my direct experience with religious people in the past years it was definitely the last category and not the first. When I was still living in Holland, with many more Reformed/Calvinist christians than here in Catholic Latin America, the first category was more abundant. So the key word in your post is "scare". If the irrational concept of (a) God is used to scare people, indeed I agree with you that it's dangerous. But if that same irrational God is used as a tool in life to handle coincidence (neutral) or blessing (positive) I don't see a danger in that and the topic title question "Can't we just get along?" would be answered to those people with a "yes, we can".
Thomasio Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Good idea, but I'm afraid that might backfire. Since religious people are still a majority, they might decide the free society is a problem, they might not talk to free people anymore, not doing business with free people, until free people comply with religious laws. Do you expect atheists to be the majority by the time we get to a free society, or do you believe a majority of religious people could be convinced to follow the opinion of a minority, or do you believe atheism will at least be strong enough to stand up against religions until the visible effects of economic advantages of the free society drag more and more religious people out of religion?
shirgall Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Since religious people are still a majority, they might decide the free society is a problem, they might not talk to free people anymore, not doing business with free people, until free people comply with religious laws. There are so many religions in conflict with one another, I expect that the cultural value of religious freedom to hang on around here for quite some time. I do think it would be an interesting experiment to eliminate the civil courts (and deregulate insurance) and allow there to be competition in how people seek to resolve conflicts and offset risk. Competition amongst DROs of the secular, religious, and other varieties might lead to some interesting conclusions.
Recommended Posts