Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2010, 02:08 PM
 
Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
Re: Stark Raving's comment on my 1st thread post - you think that one was a big splash? This one will be a cannonball of (pardon the pun) biblical proportions.

This topic is bound to draw a lot of reactions and let me say first that I am not trying to just seek lots of attention here. To me this is a serious subject and I want to not only state my position but get the reactions from others as well.

I think most of us atheists as free thinkers see religion as a poison that has contaminated and damaged our societies and civilization as a whole over the last 2,000 some odd years. As science advances our understanding of nature and the cosmos and as rational thinking has come to be more prevalent with the advent of technology and the freedom of instant information via the net this poses an interesting question.

As atheists how committed should we be to exposing and debunking religion? This seems like an obvious answer but it's deeper than it appears. Should we learn to coexist with the world religious doctrines in peace or should we move to eliminate them from our world? Should we tolerate the absurd but relatively benign beliefs such as the Christians and Jews as a "live and let live" mantra of peace? Or should we push to finally end all religious beliefs all together?

What about Islam? A religion that is a direct threat to quite literally every man, woman and child on this planet. Their goal is nothing less than world domination by Shari'a Law. Can we forge a co-existence with Muslims who seek to convert the entire world to their beliefs?

This is the hot button question of my thread - what to do about Islam and as well the other main religions. Many people including atheists are wary of publicly speaking out against Islam as it would not be politically correct. Instead some even offer up to be Islamic apologists in order to preach multi-culturalism. But how many people are truly aware of what kind of religion Islam really is and just how much of a threat does it pose to all muslims and non-muslims alike?

Before you think I am racist (which some of you might) or an alarmist (which some of you might) I suggest you do some digging and get some facts. Some of you may already know just what it is we are up against and if so then the question remains - what should we do to defend ourselves from the creeping advancement of religious subjugation under Sahari'a Law.

As food for thought check out this video then tell me what you guys think. Time may be short and the more we know and understand the better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w



If we are indeed under a threat of such imminent proportions then we need to be aware and need to know how we plan to confront it.

Peace.
Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2010, 03:35 PM
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
i didnt know that the earlier verses abrogate the later verses, i always though he qu'ran is a book where you can choose peaceful verse for peceful times and violents for violent times.

i dont believe that any western country would ever take up laws from sahari'a, those would be so much against the human right rules of the european union and to really chanche laws into more sahari'a like a country would need a muslim plurality, and in a society where the quality of education is good its not propable that the converts to islam would be high numbered.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2010, 04:30 AM
 
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
te='Lotus View' pid='5196' dateline='1279397307']
Re: Stark Raving's comment on my 1st thread post - you think that one was a big splash? This one will be a cannonball of (pardon the pun) biblical proportions.

This topic is bound to draw a lot of reactions and let me say first that I am not trying to just seek lots of attention here. To me this is a serious subject and I want to not only state my position but get the reactions from others as well.

I think most of us atheists as free thinkers see religion as a poison that has contaminated and damaged our societies and civilization as a whole over the last 2,000 some odd years. As science advances our understanding of nature and the cosmos and as rational thinking has come to be more prevalent with the advent of technology and the freedom of instant information via the net this poses an interesting question.

As atheists how committed should we be to exposing and debunking religion? This seems like an obvious answer but it's deeper than it appears. Should we learn to coexist with the world religious doctrines in peace or should we move to eliminate them from our world? Should we tolerate the absurd but relatively benign beliefs such as the Christians and Jews as a "live and let live" mantra of peace? Or should we push to finally end all religious beliefs all together?

What about Islam? A religion that is a direct threat to quite literally every man, woman and child on this planet. Their goal is nothing less than world domination by Shari'a Law. Can we forge a co-existence with Muslims who seek to convert the entire world to their beliefs?

This is the hot button question of my thread - what to do about Islam and as well the other main religions. Many people including atheists are wary of publicly speaking out against Islam as it would not be politically correct. Instead some even offer up to be Islamic apologists in order to preach multi-culturalism. But how many people are truly aware of what kind of religion Islam really is and just how much of a threat does it pose to all muslims and non-muslims alike?

Before you think I am racist (which some of you might) or an alarmist (which some of you might) I suggest you do some digging and get some facts. Some of you may already know just what it is we are up against and if so then the question remains - what should we do to defend ourselves from the creeping advancement of religious subjugation under Sahari'a Law.

As food for thought check out this video then tell me what you guys think. Time may be short and the more we know and understand the better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w



If we are indeed under a threat of such imminent proportions then we need to be aware and need to know how we plan to confront it.

Peace.
[/quote]

This is my first post/reply to a post and from my perspective is the perfect subject for me to sally forth:
From a United kingdom perspective I believe our way of life is indeed under imminent threat.We,as well as many European countries have a large and unassimilated Muslim population in most of our larger cities and towns.The natue of immigration into the U.K.is well documented and really began in earnest in the late 50s/early sixties with large numbers of people coming from the West Indies.These people were shunned and not allowed to assimilate for many years.They finally acheived some sort of acceptance by marrying into white society and in many cases upholding what they thought were the 'Christian Values' of the indiginous population.The Caribbean habit of men having large numbers of children with different women and not supporting them is the only real problem seen to still exist with this group.
The more recent (since the 70s)influx of Indian/Pakistani immigrants has taken on a very different complexion.Initially the concern was that large numbers of relatives(some of very questionable kinship to the original)were also allowed entry which quickly led to the whole system breaking down to the effect that even the government admit they have no idea how many illegal immigrants we have.So far so simple! However now that this 'Community' is of a size they have begun to seek 'rights' which no one else has really ever requested.Unfortunately, they have cleverly pressed these claims during the tenure of 3 labour governments who have cravenly assisted their every demand in the interests of 2 'Get out of jail cards' namely Community Cohesion and Cultural Sensitivity.
The Muslim definition of each of these is that anything can be demanded and any refusal can be treated as a racist insult upon which the 'community' must respond.One must admit that they are indeed a community in the way that the average Englishman and his family/friends/neighbours are not and this gives them considerable clout.
Without going on a great deal further I would say our only chance to win this war and it is a war, is to refuse at every point to accomodate these people and their demands.It is only by standing up to be counted that we have any chance to combat this cancerous growth upon our freedoms.[/size][/font]
Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2010, 08:20 AM
 
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
Quite frankly, although ramblings by the "angry militant" atheist in the room never seem to convert anyone (not that atheism itself is an institution that has converts), I am 98 percent sure that unification of the human race and world peace are not possible without the annihilation of religious thought.

Besides, why should anyone tolerate things that are not correct? Why do anything in life? We as humans seek out our own purpose by existing in society. And in society, things that are not verifiable are not accepted as correct (with the sole exception of religion). The truth must stand. Plain and simple.

As for Islam, despite what people in the US want to say to seem politically correct, the wars in the Middle East are directly the result of the fact that the terrorists/Taliban are Muslims, and the foreign infidel are Christian. If the US was an Islamic country, it wouldn't exactly be occupying the Holy Land, would it? Without the difference in religion, no conflict exists (sorry, these fucking Sunnis and Shites will keep fighting no matter what). I am often torn between my liberal ideology that the US's wars in the Middle East are unjustified, and that the US is committing war crimes there, and the fact that I am an atheist, and the more of these religious fucks die, the better. Of course, the latter is a flawed belief, I know.

Muslims currently, are waaay more fundamentalist on average than most other religions. I think the nature of the religion demands it. Currently, they piss me off the most simply because they think they deserve separate protections because they are so "faithful" and any comment whatsoever offends them. I debate my Christian friends all the time, and even jokingly insult their religion. They can take a joke. If I even talk to a Muslim about his religion, he will report me to the school office. This is the problem. These people should be afforded no special protections just because of the political situation.

Make no mistake though. If a Muslim nation occupied the US, the Christian fundamentalists in this country, and maybe the population as whole would resemble the situation in the Middle East. There would be Christian terrorists dying for their God.

Of course, the problem with this conflict is that no matter who wins, a certain religion will triumph (the US army is predominately Christian evangelical, and a lot of them believe they are fighting for God). Therefore, the ideal situation would be no conflict at all (or maybe an atheist army!).

In the end, we cannot coerce other people by force to give up their religion. This is no better than what they do (or the institutions they subscribe to did). They must be won over by logic and reason. These two things have no effect on adults, but children not yet locked into a fixed thinking pattern can be influenced. I can see it in the youth of my town. There are so many more atheists/agnostics than were in the previous generation. I think as centuries pass the youth will become increasingly atheist in this country. Nations such as Japan and several European nations already have a secular majority. There also is the chance that like racism in the US, the popularity of religion falls dramatically over only 1-2 generations. Hopefully, this is the case, but I'm not seeing it yet. It will take a movement, and a leader.
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2010, 02:39 AM
 
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
Hi TruthAddict. You are right that we here in the U.K. are more secular than you 'our closest allies'.We do however seem to bend over backwards to accomodate the ever growing demands of our increasingly demanding muslim population.I agree about the annihilation of religion possibly leading to a more peaceful world.However I am not optimistic.Both Islam and christianity stress the need to tach the bullshit to children at the youngest possible age.Religion would die a natural death if it could only be taught to 18 year olds.It ain't gonna happen.The mullahs and priests will never give up their hold over children they know what the consequences will be.We are seeing more and more 'faith Schools' opening here with the support of our government and the active support of that arsehole Blair.It is going to be a long battle and will not be won in my lifetime.We can only keep fighting back
Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2010, 09:31 AM
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
Hi.

Full disclosure. I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I hope I am welcome here nonetheless.

When I hear the way many atheists speak about religion, I wonder why atheism cannot simply be its own truth without feeling the need to attack other people's truth. I cite as example your calling religion "poison".

I ask, is the truth of atheism so inviolable that all other truths must necessarily be wrong in order for the atheist world view to be right or is there room for truths?

The argument in this thread is the discussion of eradicating a memeplex, or many memeplexes, from the face of the earth. Because memes are hosted in the mind, the way to eradicate them is either re-education or killing the host.

I ask, have any re-education programs ever truly worked and how much pain and suffering have they caused? I cite as example, the Canadian Residential School system.

In terms of eradicating the host, this is what the Christianisation of Europe was about. Eradicating an idea by destroying the host. Is the idea of the Atheistisation of the world one that sits well with Atheists?

You mention the advancing of our understanding. I ask this. Is progress inherently a good or does that idea simply reflect the incorrect interpretation of Darwin that evolution is about the progression from the simple to the complex?

As a final thought, if memes are indeed a replicator, then like genes, they make up a "biosphere". In genetics it is widely agreed that diversity fosters health and that the eradication of competing organisms and species for the benefit of a single species inevitably leads to ecosystem collapse. Monoculture, be it global Sharia or global atheism, is anathema to diversity. So can human society as a whole remain healthy with a single culture or is diversity the very thing that keeps human society healthy? Is competition with other cultures really a zero sum game or is it just what it is, competition?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2010, 10:14 AM
 
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
(23-07-2010 09:31 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hi.

Full disclosure. I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I hope I am welcome here nonetheless.

When I hear the way many atheists speak about religion, I wonder why atheism cannot simply be its own truth without feeling the need to attack other people's truth. I cite as example your calling religion "poison".

I ask, is the truth of atheism so inviolable that all other truths must necessarily be wrong in order for the atheist world view to be right or is there room for truths?


By definition, there can only be one "truth." The definition here-
S: (n) a fact that has been verified
S: (n) truth, the true, verity, trueness (conformity to reality or actuality)

Now, except in cases when general relativity and other weird physics is involved, there can only be one version of a story that matches up with the evidence and what actually happened. Atheism itself does not contain any truths, nor is it an institution that advocates for a certain set of beliefs or "truths." Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a religion and God.

Atheists, then, will then look to the products of the science and the scientific method to explain the universe. Science itself is also not an institution. Religious people often frame it as an opposing doctrine, almost as if it was another religion, and its beliefs were as heretic as any other rival religious group's beliefs.

Science is (according to one of the many online dictionaries)
"systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable."

Science, as it is referred to, often means the collective spectrum of scientific thought and the scientific community. I guess then it becomes an institution, but at its heart, science is simply a process.

It is true that the ideas (or technically, facts) that science produces are often starkly opposed to that of organized religion, but scientists reject religious belief because it is not supported by the evidence, and cannot be investigated by the scientific method. However, if evidence is found that supports a God or other religious belief, than scientists will not discount that evidence because it contradicts their beliefs. They will instead investigate it, and if it is proven beyond a doubt that there is a God, then the scientific community will accept it (or technically they should).

On the other hand, people in the religious community (which isn't mutually exclusive to the scientific community) will discount evidence that contradicts their belief because it is "heresy."

Now, let's look at the definition for "truth." "A fact that has been verified"
Ok, well all science does not have "beliefs." It has facts that have been verified by repeated testing. No idea in science is accepted simply because it was proposed by a scientist. In the religious spectrum, the word of a prominent theologian (at least in ancient times) who claimed to have spoken with God and whatnot is accepted as fact over time simply because it came from a prominent source.

This is not what happens in science. Every idea is challenged, and scientists will rigorously attempt to disprove it. If such attempts fail, then the idea is accepted as fact unless an attempt to disprove it succeeds. That is why various scientific "facts" are referred to as "theories" because it takes only one piece of evidence that is contradictory to disprove the whole idea (or at least suggest modification). So, all scientific ideas/facts have been verified numerous times, and thus they are the truth.

And since religious ideas have not gone through the same process, they are not the truth.

(23-07-2010 09:31 AM)Ghost Wrote:  The argument in this thread is the discussion of eradicating a memeplex, or many memeplexes, from the face of the earth. Because memes are hosted in the mind, the way to eradicate them is either re-education or killing the host.

I ask, have any re-education programs ever truly worked and how much pain and suffering have they caused? I cite as example, the Canadian Residential School system.

In terms of eradicating the host, this is what the Christianisation of Europe was about. Eradicating an idea by destroying the host. Is the idea of the Atheistisation of the world one that sits well with Atheists?

You mention the advancing of our understanding. I ask this. Is progress inherently a good or does that idea simply reflect the incorrect interpretation of Darwin that evolution is about the progression from the simple to the complex?

As a final thought, if memes are indeed a replicator, then like genes, they make up a "biosphere". In genetics it is widely agreed that diversity fosters health and that the eradication of competing organisms and species for the benefit of a single species inevitably leads to ecosystem collapse. Monoculture, be it global Sharia or global atheism, is anathema to diversity. So can human society as a whole remain healthy with a single culture or is diversity the very thing that keeps human society healthy? Is competition with other cultures really a zero sum game or is it just what it is, competition?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I don't think anyone here is suggesting forced brainwashing/propaganda. We believe that when human beings are exposed to rational thought, and the truth (which science is, and religion is not, as discussed above) that they will come to see it is such. And since it is hard to convince adults locked into a fixed thought patten to change their mind, children should be the main target of this exposure to rational thought. They are more susceptible to new ideas. Now, this may seem the same as religious education and indoctrination. The main difference is, scientifically tested facts are the truth, while religion is not.

Furthermore, I think we can leave the teaching of morals to the home, something religious schools do not do.

There is a difference between global Sharia law and global scientific thought and acceptance. Sharia law is brutal oppressive, and any dissent/rebellion is punished (presumably, I'm not an expert) by death.

Global scientific acceptance will not affect morals or how one must live their lives (besides believing in non-truths, which isn't really invasive). There can still be incredible variation within local culture not dependent on believing in the sky daddy (Ex. secular Jews).

And within scientific thought, new ideas are always being introduced, and old ideas challenged. There is fierce competition within the scientific community (so competition and variation still exist). Also, I don't think pursuing science and the truth instead of dogma and unsupported superstition will really have an effect on the human genome. Normal Darwinian evolution and variation/mutation should still carry on as usual, although I'm not a biologist.

BTW, you are certainly welcome here! At least, I welcome you. I can't speak for everyone of course Tongue
Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2010, 10:20 AM
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
I don't welcome you at all!!!!!! Damn wishy-washy agnostics!!! GRRRRRRR.

LMAO, just kidding. Welcome to TTAF!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2010, 12:02 PM
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
(23-07-2010 09:31 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hi.

Full disclosure. I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I hope I am welcome here nonetheless.

Yep. Everyone is welcome here. Even theists (the only theist we had here left the board in a huff after he failed to win converts, but he was welcome nonetheless).

Quote:When I hear the way many atheists speak about religion, I wonder why atheism cannot simply be its own truth without feeling the need to attack other people's truth. I cite as example your calling religion "poison".

I ask, is the truth of atheism so inviolable that all other truths must necessarily be wrong in order for the atheist world view to be right or is there room for truths?

Uh... yes. All other views must be wrong in order for atheism to be correct. Seeing as the other views entail God existing and atheism does not... I mean, you can't have God both exist and not exist at the same time.

That said, I get the feeling that you don't really understand where we are coming from. You say that atheists feel the need to attack other viewpoints. This is not entirely true.

Yes, there are "evangelist" atheists. There are also evangelist theists, and even agnostics. When measured against the whole, though, this is a very small part of the atheist community. Most of us just hang out on boards like this so that we have a sympathetic ear to vent our frustrations to.

You might say that merely discussing our annoyances with religion here constitutes attacking another viewpoint. In a way, this is true, but this again ignores the fact that everyone else is just as guilty of doing so. There are theist community forums which are constantly flooded with people whining about liberal atheists ruining America. There are agnostics on forums who whine about not everyone being as reasonable and open-minded as they are. To single us out for doing so is... not exactly a strong position.

And, yes, there are atheists who absolutely despise religion and consider it to be a poison. You would be hard-pressed to argue against them (us, I should say; while I don't feel as strongly about it as others, I agree with them on some level), since there are hundreds of thousands of documented cases of religion actively doing harm to its practitioners - or even those who just happened to be the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time.

Quote:The argument in this thread is the discussion of eradicating a memeplex, or many memeplexes, from the face of the earth. Because memes are hosted in the mind, the way to eradicate them is either re-education or killing the host.

I ask, have any re-education programs ever truly worked and how much pain and suffering have they caused? I cite as example, the Canadian Residential School system.

In terms of eradicating the host, this is what the Christianisation of Europe was about. Eradicating an idea by destroying the host. Is the idea of the Atheistisation of the world one that sits well with Atheists?

This is called a straw man argument. You have created an argument which superficially resembles our position, then attacked it instead of our actual position and declared victory.

No one here is advocating mass brainwashing and/or extermination. The reason for this is simple: atheism requires none of these.

All that is required to become an atheist (if you are already a believer, that is; several people, like myself, were never theists in the first place) is an education and a firm grasp of logic. The only "brainwashing" required would be to keep religion out of schools, which is something that should be happening anyway.

Quote:You mention the advancing of our understanding. I ask this. Is progress inherently a good or does that idea simply reflect the incorrect interpretation of Darwin that evolution is about the progression from the simple to the complex?

Uh, no, Darwin was not incorrect, but neither did he say that. This is another straw man.

Evolution does not necessarily progress from simple to complex. It does not "progress" anywhere. It simply wanders, and only the organisms which end up in the right place (are born with the best mutations) survive.

This aside, you have failed to present a case for progress being a bad thing. You have simply stated that your straw man of a Darwin was incorrect. What makes you think that progress is bad?

Quote:As a final thought, if memes are indeed a replicator, then like genes, they make up a "biosphere". In genetics it is widely agreed that diversity fosters health and that the eradication of competing organisms and species for the benefit of a single species inevitably leads to ecosystem collapse. Monoculture, be it global Sharia or global atheism, is anathema to diversity. So can human society as a whole remain healthy with a single culture or is diversity the very thing that keeps human society healthy?

This analogy fails on several levels.

One, genetics is not sociology.

Two, no one is suggesting a mono-culture planet.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2010, 02:41 PM
 
RE: Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?
(23-07-2010 12:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-07-2010 09:31 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hi.

Full disclosure. I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I hope I am welcome here nonetheless.

Yep. Everyone is welcome here. Even theists (the only theist we had here left the board in a huff after he failed to win converts, but he was welcome nonetheless).

Quote:When I hear the way many atheists speak about religion, I wonder why atheism cannot simply be its own truth without feeling the need to attack other people's truth. I cite as example your calling religion "poison".

I ask, is the truth of atheism so inviolable that all other truths must necessarily be wrong in order for the atheist world view to be right or is there room for truths?

Uh... yes. All other views must be wrong in order for atheism to be correct. Seeing as the other views entail God existing and atheism does not... I mean, you can't have God both exist and not exist at the same time.

That said, I get the feeling that you don't really understand where we are coming from. You say that atheists feel the need to attack other viewpoints. This is not entirely true.

Yes, there are "evangelist" atheists. There are also evangelist theists, and even agnostics. When measured against the whole, though, this is a very small part of the atheist community. Most of us just hang out on boards like this so that we have a sympathetic ear to vent our frustrations to.

You might say that merely discussing our annoyances with religion here constitutes attacking another viewpoint. In a way, this is true, but this again ignores the fact that everyone else is just as guilty of doing so. There are theist community forums which are constantly flooded with people whining about liberal atheists ruining America. There are agnostics on forums who whine about not everyone being as reasonable and open-minded as they are. To single us out for doing so is... not exactly a strong position.

And, yes, there are atheists who absolutely despise religion and consider it to be a poison. You would be hard-pressed to argue against them (us, I should say; while I don't feel as strongly about it as others, I agree with them on some level), since there are hundreds of thousands of documented cases of religion actively doing harm to its practitioners - or even those who just happened to be the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time.

Quote:The argument in this thread is the discussion of eradicating a memeplex, or many memeplexes, from the face of the earth. Because memes are hosted in the mind, the way to eradicate them is either re-education or killing the host.

I ask, have any re-education programs ever truly worked and how much pain and suffering have they caused? I cite as example, the Canadian Residential School system.

In terms of eradicating the host, this is what the Christianisation of Europe was about. Eradicating an idea by destroying the host. Is the idea of the Atheistisation of the world one that sits well with Atheists?

This is called a straw man argument. You have created an argument which superficially resembles our position, then attacked it instead of our actual position and declared victory.

No one here is advocating mass brainwashing and/or extermination. The reason for this is simple: atheism requires none of these.

All that is required to become an atheist (if you are already a believer, that is; several people, like myself, were never theists in the first place) is an education and a firm grasp of logic. The only "brainwashing" required would be to keep religion out of schools, which is something that should be happening anyway.

Quote:You mention the advancing of our understanding. I ask this. Is progress inherently a good or does that idea simply reflect the incorrect interpretation of Darwin that evolution is about the progression from the simple to the complex?

Uh, no, Darwin was not incorrect, but neither did he say that. This is another straw man.

Evolution does not necessarily progress from simple to complex. It does not "progress" anywhere. It simply wanders, and only the organisms which end up in the right place (are born with the best mutations) survive.

This aside, you have failed to present a case for progress being a bad thing. You have simply stated that your straw man of a Darwin was incorrect. What makes you think that progress is bad?

Quote:As a final thought, if memes are indeed a replicator, then like genes, they make up a "biosphere". In genetics it is widely agreed that diversity fosters health and that the eradication of competing organisms and species for the benefit of a single species inevitably leads to ecosystem collapse. Monoculture, be it global Sharia or global atheism, is anathema to diversity. So can human society as a whole remain healthy with a single culture or is diversity the very thing that keeps human society healthy?

This analogy fails on several levels.

One, genetics is not sociology.

Two, no one is suggesting a mono-culture planehht.


My new friend, Unbeliever is right in the mark in my opinion. The original question is problematic "Should religious doctrines be tolerated or opposed to elimination?" Tolerated by whom? We don't live in a police state. Remember first Ammendment is about separation, but also about tolerance. Certainly we need to be careful and vigilent when the constitutional borders are crossed. There is a huge body of literature about what globilization is doing to indigenous people, who live their religions and a part of ther cosmology, geneology, cultural constants. What will we do with these endangered cultures.

My reply style is more aggressive that Unbeliever, you all need to read the literature, not look at whatever people like me say or anyone on internet chat rooms and blogs. These are complex problems that will not be legislated against. Think in terms of the complexity and battle of the civil rights movement. If anyone thought the civil rights battle was bad, out challenge will get worse before it gets better. You can't say you know better and win.

BTW - we need as many agnostics and believers in the mix of debate as possible.

BTW - "Muslims currently, are way more fundamentalist on average than most other religions" Once again Truth Addict throw facts around without refernce or citiation and once aain he is wrong. Read or vied lecture by Anthropologist Richard Artran. Some are on You Tube. I for one find your language not unlike a brainwashed Marine who is about to be let loose on an enemy. The most recent Pew Poll does not support your statement either.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: