Should Religion be banned

[Handy andy]

Well, whether or not to tax religious organizations is an entirely different question from whether to ban them. It's interesting to me that in another thread you argued for an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution (re: whether the government should involve itself in health care), but here you have a much more invasive opinion.

 

I am not particularly religious myself; my defense of religious freedom is motivated by the second word in that phrase - freedom. Yes, some people do terrible things in the name of religion, and I want those people stopped. But there have also been people who turned away from a life of violence and harm to others by being "saved," as they put it. By banning religion completely you eliminate those events as well.

 

Also, as someone pointed out above you really wouldn't succeed with an attempt to ban religion. You'd just drive it underground, out of sight, and you'd give the violence-prone folks amongst the religious all the more reason to hate and fight you. Unintended consequences would bite you in a major way.

 

All that is secondary to me, though - the bottom line for me is that as long as someone isn't harming others then how that person lives their life is none of our business.

 

The bottom line in any belief must be, not to harm anyone else. It does not take religion to come to that understanding.

 

If religions were taxed, would anyone have a problem.

 

You claimed that because some people don't want to ban religion that they must want it to stay, that they must want to keep it. That's either a strawman of the stance, or it's a false dilemma, both of which are logical fallacies, a bad place to build an argument.

 

I don't participate in religion, and I know the only way to cure the ignorance it fosters is education, not denial. I can show why religion isn't necessary and hope to teach some reasoning ability, but if I just tell someone they can't worship the way they like they'll most likely get angry and dig in their heels and refuse to take the information in (much the way you're doing).

 

It's an emotional stance, like the one you've taken against it. Your solution is neither reasoned nor reasonable, so in the end it's just as ignorant of reality as religion is.

 

So you believe religion is an ignorant reality.

Really? Are your reading comprehension skills really that bad?

 

the last word ends in off

Does he have comprehension skills capable of logically debating an argument to ban religion?

 

see above

[Silvestru]

Aside from being taller, the Cave troll has the added advantage of not being able to type on a keyboard. Also it has no opinion on religion and does not persecute or contradict valid arguments.

 

Be like the Cave Troll folks.

If religions were taxed, would anyone have a problem.

 

Many people asked how you propose to Tax religion. Should we also tax grammar mistakes, accents and people who believe in fields rather than particles while we're there?

[Phi for All]

So you believe religion is an ignorant reality.

 

I wrote a lot of words about what I believe, and none of them was exactly like this, so no.

 

I think supernatural claims are an extremist offshoot of some evolutionary traits that helped humans a great deal. We learned to imagine things that aren't there, and while it helped us survive sneak attacks from lions in the shadows, it also gave us sky gods and spirits who make it rain. Some people have taken their imaginations to the extreme.

 

However, no matter how Iron Age ignorant the practice is, in many of its forms religion is harmless as practiced. It would only become dangerous if taken to the extreme by zealots who felt everyone was trying to suppress their beliefs entirely, like if someone were to ban religion.

 

Trust me, this is one of those issues where it sounds good to stamp out the practice for the good of all, but in practice it would backfire in ways you can't foresee. Careful here, I'm going to use another limited analogy, and I didn't want to throw you, but it's like lying. Lying is something you might think should be banned, but it's actually a pretty important marker in human development. When human children learn to lie, they're learning how to predict the future and insure a better outcome based on present actions. For most people, banning lying might be a horrible blow to their development, done for altruistic reasons. Some people might be better people because of their religion, and we just have no way to know.

 

If you banned religion, you'd find a whole bunch of people who were keeping it together mentally because of it, and they'd no longer have a reason for hope. It's not rational, but as we've seen in this thread, forcing people to be rational rarely works.

[DrP]

Yes to whoever above said that religion was an ignorant reality (although I would say it was an ignorant UN-reality). It really is , by definition, backward. It has held the world and many people (my self included) backwards for too long.

 

The problem is.... how does the world get the believers in Allah, Jehova and Vishnu etc, to file away such mythical deities along with the likes of Zeus, Thor, Anubis etc? (because banning it would just stir up hatred and wars and 'prove right' the extremists that want you to think the rest of us are godless heathens)

Edited May 25, 2017 by DrP

[dimreepr]

the last word ends in off

 

Let me guess, brushoff?

[DrP]

Head off? Move off? Tootle off? Pop off?

[Raider5678]

 

I wrote a lot of words about what I believe, and none of them was exactly like this, so no.

 

I think supernatural claims are an extremist offshoot of some evolutionary traits that helped humans a great deal. We learned to imagine things that aren't there, and while it helped us survive sneak attacks from lions in the shadows, it also gave us sky gods and spirits who make it rain. Some people have taken their imaginations to the extreme.

 

However, no matter how Iron Age ignorant the practice is, in many of its forms religion is harmless as practiced. It would only become dangerous if taken to the extreme by zealots who felt everyone was trying to suppress their beliefs entirely, like if someone were to ban religion.

 

Trust me, this is one of those issues where it sounds good to stamp out the practice for the good of all, but in practice it would backfire in ways you can't foresee. Careful here, I'm going to use another limited analogy, and I didn't want to throw you, but it's like lying. Lying is something you might think should be banned, but it's actually a pretty important marker in human development. When human children learn to lie, they're learning how to predict the future and insure a better outcome based on present actions. For most people, banning lying might be a horrible blow to their development, done for altruistic reasons. Some people might be better people because of their religion, and we just have no way to know.

 

If you banned religion, you'd find a whole bunch of people who were keeping it together mentally because of it, and they'd no longer have a reason for hope. It's not rational, but as we've seen in this thread, forcing people to be rational rarely works.

I think religion would be an evolutionary trait on the premise that those that belonged to a religion were more likely to survive do to idea of them belonging to a group.

[Handy andy]

I think religion would be an evolutionary trait on the premise that those that belonged to a religion were more likely to survive do to idea of them belonging to a group.

 

So you believe religious people get around Darwinian natural selection by belonging to a religious group.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/teenage-girl-confirmed-dead-after-manchester-terror-attack-as-her-friend-is-treated-for-severe-burns/ar-BBBvxEe?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

 

 

 

Let me guess, brushoff?

 

Brush off is close enough It's probably the best guess at what I was indicating by my response to the deliberately offensive folk above.

[dimreepr]

Brush off is close enough It's probably the best guess at what I was indicating by my response to the deliberately offensive folk above.

 

I know what two words you meant (I was being pedantic and facetious), Strange wasn't being offensive he was asking a question; the clues in the question marks.

Edited May 25, 2017 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

So you believe religious people get around Darwinian natural selection by belonging to a religious group.

What the.....

Did you even read what I said? I didn't say that at all.

[Prometheus]

By perhaps I assume you agree.

 

By perhaps i acknowledge any particular religion might not be suitable for any one person, but that's for them to decide, not a dictator.

 

 

I do not find religious extremists enhance my life at all, and I am pretty sure the families of the dead in Manchester don't either.

 

No one on this thread has claimed religious extremists are good thing, have they? Use the quote function if i've missed someone saying so.

 

 

OK I guess you are an Anarchist Buddhist, who believes in Darwinian natural selection of the species. In which case blowing people up and allowing weak minded people to harm themselves and others around them is no problem.

 

Thanks for telling me what i think: your joy for dictating other people's thoughts really shows. Is it OK, oh great dictator, if i think you're quite silly?

 

Of course, it is a strawman, fast becoming a straw army there are so many of them. When have i said i have no problem with 'blowing people up' or 'harm themselves or others'?

 

 

My understanding of Buddhism, is that it is more to do with spirituality an afterlife or rebirth and the occult, than the worship of a god figure. I have no gripe against Buddhists that I can think of at the moment. However self harm I don't approve off, all things should be done in moderation, including alcohol. As for Hard drugs, I understand they can destroy your mind and cause people to stare at blank walls for hours on end. Cuidado

 

No, the thread is about religion.

 

So Buddhism is not a religion and is not facing a ban? What about Taoism, Confucianism, Rastafarianism, Shinto...?

 

Buddhism has its share of extremists, mostly in Sri Lanka and Myanmar and some in Thailand.

 

And, again, if you are talking about taxing or banning things then you are talking about politics. You know it's possible to talk about religion and politics at the same time, right? Who is going to do the banning and taxing... government, no?

[Raider5678]

And, again, if you are talking about taxing or banning things then you are talking about politics. You know it's possible to talk about religion and politics at the same time, right? Who is going to do the banning and taxing... government, no?

More likely marauding gangs forcing people to pay up if they practice a religion....

Except they gangs would be a particular religion suppressing another religion.

[OldChemE]

 

 

2. Electing a billionaire businessman POTUS.

 

As opposed to electing a rich career politician such as a Clinton POTUS??

[Phi for All]

As opposed to electing a rich career politician such as a Clinton POTUS??

 

I only listed the top 5 stupidest suggestions.

[Raider5678]

As opposed to electing a rich career politician such as a Clinton POTUS??

The last election....

Was a disaster.

I think it was the lesser of the two evils who people voted for, rather then actually like them.

Besides.

This has nothing to do with the election.

Let it go.

[Itoero]

I am all for the freedom of thought. BUT in light of recent and historic atrocities accreditted to religious people does any one think religion should be banned globally?

 

Does anyone have any idea at all what would be the best way of setting events in motion to ban religions in the developed world.

I think many religions should be taught in a scientific way, in public schools. Perhaps religion can be taught in history class...

This is only possible in well developed countries.

[Handy andy]

I politely withdraw from this debate, without further comment

 

Andy

[iNow]

Much more polite would be to address the criticisms of your points and counter arguments presented in a mature manner...

[Raider5678]

Found this forum full of crackpot religious people.

Now their religion should be banned due to Racist, Sexist, and murderous people on their.

 

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/

 

Just saying.

 

And before you say anything, most Christians are not like this.

I know that for a fact.

[Phi for All]

Much more polite would be to address the criticisms of your points and counter arguments presented in a mature manner...

 

Or admit that, after discussing it with peers, the idea had major flaws that call its feasibility into question.

 

Or reach the rational conclusion that most ideas are wrong, and this was one of them.

 

Or step back and ask if the goal can be accomplished with a less radical approach.

 

Anything but walk away from the discussion.

[dimreepr]

Head off? Move off? Tootle off? Pop off?

 

You're missing my point, he said the last word ENDS in off and no limit to the number of words, so it could be a sentence but not one that ends with the word 'off'. The second layer is brushoff neatly describes his method of debate.

 

Sorry DrP I'm not patronising YOU.

Edited May 26, 2017 by dimreepr

[DrP]

That's perfectly alright anyway - I did miss the point. It's not that uncommon for things to pass me by, lol.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

The side-chat, casual insults, and logical fallacies in this thread - from all viewpoints - was fairly disappointing. Thread Locked - we should be able to have a discussion on religion without resorting to such teenage antics. Please try to keep the signal to noise ratio a little higher in future.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Calling out the troll

 

From my understanding, if you label someone as a troll you are claiming they are arguing merely to annoy and frustrate the other members of the board; the internet maxim is Don't Feed the Trolls - you highlight the problem and then withdraw. A report using the handy system provided will often sort this problem out. If, however, you label your counterpart in a discussion a Troll and then continue to argue with this member then this is an argumentum ad hominem; you are attempting to diminish the argument of the other member by attacking her or his character and motivation.

 

There is no place in Scienceforums.net for any form of logical fallacy especially not one which relies on adversely characterising or stereotyping another member. Please bear this in mind whenever the temptation is to start name-calling of any sort. Thanks.