It is 2015 , should governments outlaw religion?

If my opinion of your post was that it is a dangerous fantasy, should the government take away your computer to make better use of it?

 

People are going to believe what they want to believe. For example, a guy wins a jackpot on a slot machine in Vegas and tells everyone he won because he was carrying his lucky rabbit's foot.

 

So you are saying that because 84% of the world BELIEVING in something is reason enough to do things a particular way into perpetuity? That ain't good enough for me.

I don't think Rowling or Spielberg ever claimed their writings are 'teachings', but they are talent and should be rewarded. Not so for the religionists.

 

This constitutional is an American thing right? A constitution written by someone, their views being their personal ''narcissistic'' views. It is not for one person to be so deeply involved and have any decision for that of us all.
People believe in religion as a sort of programming, believing in make believe is not sane or logical for a stability of mankind. In my opinion we need a sort of new world order.

 

And we would know the fact he won was because he was in the correct place in space-time at the correct time playing the correct machine, nothing to do with anything symbolical.

 

When you guys can come up with a reasonable theory for the creation of life you can take God off the table but until then you are stuck with it.

 

Exactly that , 84 % of you believe in fairy tales from fictional books and because so many of the masses liked the story and related to the abstract thought, it continued and will continue in the false reality until somebody shreds the link from history that continues in the present.

 

In some ways I agree that a secuarlist state might be more dangerous than a religious fundamentalist state, since fundamentalist regimes are at least more stable.

Even in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia you don't see mass genocide like what was committed by Stalin and Mao.

 

You and your thought police can tear down all the churches, mosques, and temples and outlaw religion. You will in no way alter what people believe. I always knew Big Brother would be a progressive.

 

Have you never seen algae magically appearing on a pond? or mould appearing out of fresh air? Life was answered along time ago.

 

Wrong again. The belief preceded the church.

 

And this "outlawing" of religion by some 'new world order' does not amount to having been "written by someone, their views being their personal ''narcissistic'' views." Is this not the same as "one, making the decision for us all"?

 

People will alter their views when they realise the abstract of religion.

 

Then show me the study where we can magically create life in a lab.

I will wait.

 

Meaning you can't explain life. Do you believe algae appears by magic? Magic's not real. You believe in magic LOL. Too funny.

 

Really? You do know that that algae doesn't appear magically, don't you? It appears because spores are carried to the pond (or were already there). Same with mould. Please study basic biology first.

 

Algae appears because it already exists.

These guys are funny. Per the scientific method, you have to keep God on the table as a possibility, you do not get to just discount things because you do not want to believe it.

 

As long as it's their choice, I have no problem. I don't like the idea of a tyrannical government deciding to outlaw religion. You seem to be making two contrasting arguments.

 

What this "84% of you" stuff, kimosabe?

 

Fictional fire side stories, nobody could write, spread the word. Very simple Chinese whispers.

 

A God per se.

Ironic, don't you think?

Do you realize that your God is this idyllic "true leader" capable of making all the choices that you would make to benefit man and mankind? Why would you put your faith in such a man, and mock those that place their faith elsewhere?

After all, "religion's" wealth was amassed due to those who place their faith in such. All those that donate their lives and wealth to their faith don't matter to you, I suppose? And what does that say about your benevolent "true leader", who must also eschew the beliefs of those with such a faith? Doesn't sound like service to mankind at all. Sounds like service to you.

 

A true leader recognizes the right to keep the product of your work. If you have reason to think the wealth possessed by a religious organization is not actually their property (are you claiming they stole it somehow?) then you need to show us why it isn't their property. I'm all ears (well eyes actually).

 

Why do you belief he "should" spend this wealth on the poor? What if he doesn't want to - or what if consequentalist social Darwinism suggests that letting the poor and weak die actually benefits the species in the long run in favor of letting the fittest and most intelligent people do all of the breeding?

So why do you as an atheist "believe" he should spend money on the poor even when evidence shows that the richest and most intelligent doing most of the the reproduction actually benefits the collective more in the long run? - do you believe this based on faith? How's your belief any different than a Christian who believes the same thing, other than quoting Jesus' sermon on the Mount?

 

And do you think spores magically appear? magically was sarcasm.