It is 2015 , should governments outlaw religion?

Individuals can rationalize all sorts of behavior as "good" or "moral" if we are to believe that morality and ethics are the subjective whim of man.

Which is a great reason why placing governing power over all into the hands of a few is such a terrible idea.

Even from the position of the social Darwinist, who would agree that variety of survival strategy is superior to a unified survival strategy. (Many people making many different choices leads to better outcomes faster than a few people making a few choices for everyone.) Religion not excluded.

 

Are you suggesting that a person from a poor home or poverty situation or famine stricken countries are less likely to be smart than a person who was rich? Smartness is the ability to think not the ability to remember knowledge.

I have no belief only facts of life, the fact is there is an inequality in the world, I need no belief to know this is fact when I observe pets getting treated better than the homeless.

To benefit a failing species in the long run is to unite all the world as one world, the divider of a name alone being a partition of humanity, we are English, we are American,. we are Russian, all incorrect statements, we are all earthlings.

 

They will however most likely be better educated

 

How does one outlaw a belief? You might as well try and outlaw worth/value.

There are people who are fanatical about their beliefs, and they will kill you for daring try and tell them what to believe or dare suggest that their beliefs are not real therefore criminal to promote. And that is just the Christians, some of the other more loonier beliefs will slice off your head, cut you in little pieces and feed you to their dog.

You would do much better by addressing corruption, identifying greed, become a leader in the cause of white collar criminals/totalitarian dictators/corporate sock puppet politicians, yet I repeat myself, who never seem to be held accountable, etc... etc...

 

You could have the best education money could provide but a tool is only as good as the tradesman.

 

Where's your evidence that they are smart? Sounds like you believe this not based on statistical evidence, but on faith.

Why do you believe that inequality is "bad"?

If we banned poor people from having children and only allowed the rich and intelligent to procreate, we could eliminate all poverty within a generation. So why would this be "wrong"?

That's actually not what evolution shows - no species in evolution has a concept of complete unity; apes for example sometimes kill the offspring of rivals, and apes divide themselves into separate clans.

So this is actually way more of a faith-based belief than anything based merely on empirical science.

It's really just a pseudo-scientific attempt to make a "scientific" case for Utopian Marxism while selectively ignoring any and all science pointing to the contrary - not really any different than the Nazis also selectively using "science" to support the notion of scientific racism and eugenics.

 

It is not hard to outlaw a belief when the facts can be stated. Take away the public eye from religion. It does not matter if one factor remains , they will have nobody to argue with , they can claim their victory in believing in fairy tales, although I have discoursed their good book to find it is a meeting manuscript.

 

You want to cause wars not end them, you want to try attack the poor and inequality , you do not have enough bullets for your the narcissistic action.

 

I agree, in fact my personal view from the science I've read actually points toward moral objectivity and all individuals having an intuitive sense of right and wrong.

Unfortunately the trend today is to use "science" selectively to support political and ethical agendas - usually some form of moral relativism or consequentalism.

Fact is though to a degree all of these people are still using "faith" as the basis for their decision making.

A person can take scientific evidence which "is" true and still form a faith-based reductionist conclusion off of the evidence which isn't actually true. Racists for example use the evidences of IQ gaps between races (which is true) to assert the idea that one race is superior or deserves more rights over the other

And ironically the "scientific" progressivists usually get offended over simply discussing evidence which contradicts their faith based agenda - ex. pretty much all scientific evidence indicates that their are innate behavioral differences between men and women, and evidence also indicates that all species including humans have a concept of hierarchy as well as an innate preference to it's own "kind" or those in close proximity - but progressiveness who selectively use "science" to promote utopian Marxist agendas will of course completely ignore these facts, and only focus on the "altruistic" aspects of species to the exclusion of these other elements.

This is why it's silly for them to claim they're merely quoting "science" when in reality they're just taking bits and pieces of science to support their own faith-based belief system.

 

[/quote]
If we cordoned off all of the poor into segregated areas and prohibited them from reproducing then we would end inequality - so it might harm a few individuals but in the long run it would be for the "greater good" of the species since no more children would be born into poverty.

So why is this "wrong"? And why is your belief that it's wrong any different than any other faith-based belief?

 

Here is a news flash, nobody gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you think. No offense, but do you honestly think you are the first person to come to that conclusion?

Many have come before you and determined that it was better to use that delusion (their belief) in their favor. Most of the religious leaders throughout history have taken that delusion and ran with it. Do you honestly believe the gang over at the 700 Club or those mega Church con artists give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what somebody's God thinks? The more people who believe the Bible/any religious writing is the honest gospel the easier they are to control. The more of these people you can con the more money they will send you, since everybody knows (what George Carlin says) God is all mighty and powerful but he need money.

A real lunatic with delusions of grandeur would have their sights on domination of the hordes and would never suggest eliminating religion. Religion is one of their best tools in their bag of goodies. In fact they would be more than willing to pump up the volume on the delusion even more than it has been in the past to achieve their own enrichment.

 

If we cordoned off all of the poor into segregated areas and prohibited them from reproducing then we would end inequality - so it might harm a few individuals but in the long run it would be for the "greater good" of the species since no more children would be born into poverty.

So why is this "wrong"? And why is your belief that it's wrong any different than any other faith-based belief?[/QUOTE]

You are saying the rich own the poor and the poor are nothing but slaves giving their time to the rich to be cast into the shadows of hell by the rich, logically the armies will not enforce it, they will have poor family members, are you going to make the army soldiers and their families rich also? Then who would the rich find to cultivate the land and provide food growth and harvest?

The rich would clear the way for the soldiers to take it all and the rich will end up in the fields as slaves. Logical argument not belief there will be someone who still strives for power and will end having the power of absolute nothing,

 

Replace "religion" with anything else and the same conclusion is true - whether it's appeal to fear, guilt, or any other emotion - there's nothing special about "religion".

Tell me how for any intents and purposes PETA is any different than a religious group - their entire mission is based on using the appeal to emotion (ex. meat is murder) to persuade others to their views, and there's no "evidence" that will convince them to change their minds - they'd rather thousands of people die from disease than experiment on a lab rat.

So really, what is so special about a "religious" belief? I see no difference - the only difference is it has the "God" part attached to it.

 

Actually smartness is the ability to remember knowledge, intelligence measures your ability to learn.

 

And you would not want to listen because you are narcissistic so turn to profanities in the aim of bigging it up. I do not listen or take offence from dribble. All religion is abstract.

- - - Updated - - -

Being smart is the ability to interpret information correctly and consciously make an accurate correct choice that any smart person logically thinks about first.

 

Truth is only being able to see the entire world in terms of "religious" and "secular" is a sign of poor critical thought.

 

Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

 

Looking at reality is of critical thought and the truths of critical thought. I am so therefore I am conscious, to be or not be a ''robot'' I choose to not be. We can not keep following an imaginary course and not accepting the reality of the situation of the world as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no idea what the 1 st amendment is, but I am guessing it was wrote by someone with religion beliefs and a god fearing Christian? My assumption because you mentioned it.

 

OOOhhhHHHooo.. You aren't an American. So sorry.

The 1st Amendment to the US constitution secures the freedom of religion for the people on the US.
And so, it is legally impossible to outlaw religion here.

 

Is this trolling or serious?

 

And who wrote it? some person who was religious ? a narcissistic view of how and what should be? it logically fails in that it is a Law to allow the practice of false beliefs based on abstract content.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm English , I do not know your constitution. And yes its serious,

 

No, just if they in any way involve themselves in politics, they should though be listed as a HATE GROUP if they support views in opposition to society as in attack protected groups and/or say anything negative about specific groups (minorities of all kinds, married gay couples and so forth). Other than that its fine by me if they are around.

 

Because I believe in leaving other individuals alone so long as they permit me the same. I have no desire to have armed state thugs steal the wealth of voluntary religious communities. That seems to me the height of tyranny. Real authoritarian regime type stuff.

 

PETA has a following but it isn't even comparable to the persuasive nature of religious influence.

Since the first primate looked at the other and pointed to the sun and said; "See that glowing light in the sky? That is God, and he told me to tell you to give me your banana or else." And it worked, religion except for in the case of the Godless communists who just basically went with the standard bully routine, "Give me your banana or I'll kill ya." Humanity has been driven, directed, and dominated by some form of religion or another.

Ironically it is always about how God/Gods came down and told somebody, there's always that one, to tell everybody else, that they said to do something or other that usually was extremely beneficial to the messenger, until Jesus came along, then that mantra changed a we bit, and now it is all about what Jesus said, coming from some unknown author who wasn't actually old enough to meet Jesus. But that isn't what really matters.

What matters is that you know that Jesus said it, and if you don't believe it you will live throughout eternity in a pool of fire, getting porked in the as by that mean old Devil's pointed tail.

 

And is it fine their wealth comes from forcing a false belief of abstract content justified ? Wars caused by this? How is religion any different from Hitler?