Thread: Should advertising of religious and superstition be illegal?

What do you think of this? Advertising of religion such as scientology, the catholic church, palm reading and other superstitious hogwash such as ghost hunts? I know that there is a right to free speech but to what extent is this kind of advertising going to brainwash people? Then affecting their mental health? Surely we value the mentality of children and vulnerable minded people yes? If they are being suggestive as to having the solution to their problems yet have no scientifically verified way to prove their claims is it not classed as psychological abuse for profit?

This is a fundamental question I have been struggling with. Why is it unacceptable for an organisation to physically inflict pain on someone or an organisation to inflict physical abuse but its openly fine for them to subject others to all kinds of psychological abuse and after they have, here comes more religion and superstition waiting to make a profit off of their suffering. Makes me sick, if they are going to abuse people like that, then how do they deserve free speech to promote their ignorant teachings? Should there be a limit? Should we have a few decades of rigorous political change regarding religion and superstition? Or a general law that says if religion or superstition has caused on psychological trauma that they should be prosecuted?

How much longer are we going to permit free speech and freedom to criminals and crooks. This is a fundamental question I have been asking, is it right to do this? Do we value the freedom and free speech so much more than the suffering of the people they are hurting?

It is one fundamental absolute basis of morality battling against another. Where is the fine line here between this, and its extreme; the holocaust? We are in trying times of thought and it seems nobody wants to ask these questions, these VERY dangerous questions.

Please keep an objective mind in answering this question if it offends; please do not allow ego involved here either or the defending of 'values'. This is a very serious question I am struggling with. Please help. With one final note, it has been said that although Democracy works and it is the best system of politics we have compared to the others, it is still a terrible one. And as long as democracy seems to keep this question out of consideration, maybe we should consider it which is why I put forth this original question: Should advertising of religious and superstition be illegal?

Thanks.

I think all people should be exposed to ideas, whether we find them agreeable or not.
There is nothing forceful about advertising- it doesn't hold a gun to your head and make you buy into the product. It's just annoying and since advertising gets more and more in your face, we get better and better at tuning it out.

Just as certain things don't get advertised now, like assult rifles, dynamite and other things I think there should be laws enacted to prevent crapola from being advertised but I'm just one voice. We are inundated with advertising about everything today just about so why not limit what can and cannot be advertised just as it has always been, just include more junk.

I don't think stupidity should be made illegal, but I do think it should be taxed like everything else. It's rather hard and expensive to get a gambling (stupidity tax) license.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Should advertising of religious and superstition be illegal?

I think you have a point. Whenever I go into my local shopping mall I pass THE BIBLE STUDY CENTRE, which on the outside makes no mention that it is a commercial venture for a nut cult called the Christadelphians. This sick organization believe among other things that the earth is only 6000 years old. They want to brainwash you first and then they want your money. I see people entering who almost certainly have no idea what this venemous cult really stands for. And yet, are they really much worse than the Catholics who will force you to believe in virgin births, people rising from the dead and the transmutation of bread and wine? If extreme political organizations are marginalized in society then we have to ask the question as to why extreme religious organizations are not. One of the great cornerstones of modern society is that it protects the vulnerable, and I don't see why this shouldn't apply to religion. They should at least be forced to admit, before they spit out their propaganda, that what you are about to hear has no basis whatsoever in fact, and should be treated as such.

Originally Posted by ox

One of the great cornerstones of modern society is that it protects the vulnerable

How is such a thing a "great cornerstone?!" Doesn't sound so great to me. It's expensive and bad for breeding.

Let the weak get eaten.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Quantime

Should advertising of religious and superstition be illegal?

I think you have a point. Whenever I go into my local shopping mall I pass THE BIBLE STUDY CENTRE, which on the outside makes no mention that it is a commercial venture for a nut cult called the Christadelphians. This sick organization believe among other things that the earth is only 6000 years old. They want to brainwash you first and then they want your money. I see people entering who almost certainly have no idea what this venemous cult really stands for. And yet, are they really much worse than the Catholics who will force you to believe in virgin births, people rising from the dead and the transmutation of bread and wine? If extreme political organizations are marginalized in society then we have to ask the question as to why extreme religious organizations are not. One of the great cornerstones of modern society is that it protects the vulnerable, and I don't see why this shouldn't apply to religion. They should at least be forced to admit, before they spit out their propaganda, that what you are about to hear has no basis whatsoever in fact, and should be treated as such.

This is the fundamental problem I have as well with advertisement of religion, it is seemingly harmless to advertise hair products, shoes, smart phones but to change peoples minds into accepting unsubstantiated claims about nature and then go on to spread that dogma and ignorance and malice as in some cases it does, then I think we've hit it spot on that it should be illegal. There is a fine line between stupidity and ignorance and the latter is by far the definition of religion at this point in our technological and informational advancement and achievement, and that is dangerous.

Why is it with some people that everything that is not compulsory must be forbidden? How about just leaving people alone?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why is it with some people that everything that is not compulsory must be forbidden? How about just leaving people alone?

It should be illegal for you to say that because I don't want to hear it.

Seriously, though, since when did legislating everything become the norm? Our government is already too fat to tie its own shoes and people want to give it MORE power and responsibility? Yeesh.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How about just leaving people alone?

Agreed, when religious organisations stop the withholding of condoms to people with aids, when they stop telling inflicting child abuse on children by telling and showing with videos that they are going to burn in hell, when they stop telling people evolution is false, when they stop organizing into groups that want to stop gay people getting married etc etc etc... then I will leave them alone.

Man, I saw the commercial, there's some really hot chicks @ ChristianMingle.com

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How about just leaving people alone?

Agreed, when religious organisations stop the withholding of condoms to people with aids, when they stop telling inflicting child abuse on children by telling and showing with videos that they are going to burn in hell, when they stop telling people evolution is false, when they stop organizing into groups that want to stop gay people getting married etc etc etc... then I will leave them alone.

Okay, how can a religious organization keep someone from getting condoms? So you think it is all right to deprive a group of people of their freedom of speech if they believe in hell, if some members of the group have commited child abuse, and if they have some different ideas than you about marriage?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Okay, how can a religious organization keep someone from getting condoms?

By telling them that using one is a mortal evil, and consequently putting their souls or access to heaven at risk. In short fear of going to hell. And when that fails, just lie to create fear.

In 2003, contrary to empirical evidence, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family - "senior spokesman" Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo - claimed that condoms are permeable to the aids virus. He explained to BBC interviewers that "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." These false claims were echoed by an archbishop of Nairobi, as well as by Catholics as far Asia and Latin America.

This was interpreted in May 1990 by the Roman Catholic bishops of Madagascar as a "solemn reminder" giving ground for their view that in the context of positions such as that of cardinal Lustiger who stated that it was a "lesser evil", "the condom remains a 'moral evil'".[11]

In 1987, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a document suggesting that education on the use of condoms could be an acceptable part of an anti-AIDS program.
In response, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that such an approach "would result in at least the facilitation of evil" – not merely its toleration.

In 2005, the Pope listed several ways to combat the spread of HIV, including chastity, fidelity in marriage and anti-poverty efforts; he also rejected the use of condoms.

Catholic Church and AIDS/HIV

Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Okay, how can a religious organization keep someone from getting condoms?

The Catholic Church do a pretty good job of it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So you think it is all right to deprive a group of people of their freedom of speech if they believe in hell, if some members of the group have commited child abuse, and if they have some different ideas than you about marriage?

If in the course of their beliefs they then use them to stop people from getting married and living a happy life, yes. The point here Harold is are you going to uphold one liberty of one group of people even though they seek to take away the liberty of another when the other is not seeking to do the same to them?

It's kind of like saying its OK for a burglar to steal from their house, and we who can stop this from happening to these poor people from being stolen from, yet do nothing to help them. And for that matter innocent others that are minding their own business when a group of religious brainwashed people come in introducing legislation saying that they can't get married because some 2000 year old book says they can't? What's going on?

Would you let modern nazis have freedom to demonstrate and promote their ideas and opinions openly? Would you allow the KKK do the same publicly? Of course not, this is NO different and our conditioning that we must for some reason respect religion because it is religion is absurd. I will personally not stand by here and let a religious organisation that is founded on ignorance interfere in politics, education and society as a whole. They inflict disease upon the mind, they are waging a war against rationality and if we stand by and do nothing they will win.

I understand in older years of your life it is easy to take a neutral stance Harold, but the world doesn't see things the same and these radical groups certaintly do not. They won't stop until everyone is living under religious doctrine. If they want to believe in God, fine. If they want to believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, fine. But when they cross the line and inflict damage on people by interfering in others lives and rights that's where we have to step in and say no.

Originally Posted by Quantime

If in the course of their beliefs they then use them to stop people from getting married and living a happy life, yes.
It's kind of like saying its OK for a burglar to steal from their house, and we who can stop this from happening to these poor people from being stolen from, yet do nothing to help them. And for that matter innocent others that are minding their own business when a group of religious brainwashed people come in introducing legislation saying that they can't get married because some 2000 year old book says they can't? What's going on?

Would you let modern nazis have freedom to demonstrate and promote their ideas and opinions openly? Would you allow the KKK do the same publicly? Of course not, this is NO different and our conditioning that we must for some reason respect religion because it is religion is absurd. I will personally not stand by here and let a religious organisation that is founded on ignorance interfere in politics, education and society as a whole. They inflict disease upon the mind, they are waging a war against rationality and if we stand by and do nothing they will win.

They won't stop until everyone is living under religious doctrine. If they want to believe in God, fine. If they want to believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, fine. But when they cross the line and inflict damage on people by interfering in others lives and rights that's where we have to step in and say no.

Hello Quantime,

I notice in your text you exhibit some beleifs, some opinions.
I have no wish to argue with your beliefs or get involved in a heavy conversation about the subject of this thread... as I think it would be nothing but two or more people exchanging beliefs and exhibiting indoctrinations.

But it occurs to me that you are turning a blind eye to the fact that you have been indoctrinated with beliefs and opinions that could be considered irrational, religious or even superstitious.

There is much that is irrational about current education, society and even your comment. It is also irrational of me to respond to it.

People are irrational, people are ignorant, this cannot be rationally ignored! There is too much of a contradiction in this position of yours... especially considering it is a position that you have either been consciously or subconsciously indoctrinated into. These are not even your opinions, you are expressing the opinions of people who have affected your thinking and beliefs.

I'm not trying to say the beliefs are right or wrong... but they are human and so they are deeply ignorant, irrational and the result of indoctrination.

No offence intended... this is just an irrational perspective that occurs to me due to my unavoidable ignorance and possibly resulting from some kind of indoctrination.


You really lost me with the stuff about people preventing other people from undergoing a religious ritual called marriage which forgive me if i'm mistaken, you seem to imply is a key to leading a happy life. If your anti religion and indoctrinated beleif then I wonder why you mention the right of people to partake in this particular religious ceremony as if it is so totally natural? If your anti religion then why would you care about the rights of Gay people to marry? Why would Gay people want to be part of a religion which condemns their adopted lifestyle? It all seems quite irrational to me and thats just being honest rather than intentionally provocative.

If anything I think what we are seeing in mainstream society is an indoctrination of people resulting in an impassioned and irrational beleif that they need to fight against all religions and beleifs... resulting in such conundrums as anti religionists fighting for the rights of Gay folks to be ordained in holy matrimony by a preist of a religion which the anti religionist has no tollerance or respect for. I personally feel this particular argument is simply an attack on religion by people who do not care about the rights of Gays, so much as they care about the demise of religious institutions. It's nothing but a card in a game... If a Man wants to love and live with another man, and a religion tells him it is wrong, then how on Earth can it be considered rational for that man to want to follow the indoctrinated rituals prescribed by said religion?

Don't get me wrong... I don't have an opinion on whether it would be best to erradicate organised religion or not. Though I cannot comprehend the notion that we can get rid of irrational beleifs or superstitions based on ignorance, because I cannot ignore the fact that these things, particularly ignorance, are a fundamental part of the Human condition.

Also, I couldn't help notice that my education tried to indoctrinate me into many beliefs and supostitions, it was bassically a religious endevour as far as I could see, they tried to make me believe in and dedicate my life to serving an unfair, hypocritical system of society which obviously benefits the few far more than it benefits the many. They also tried to indoctrinate me into a moral and ethical code which is almost identical in affect to the moral and ethical codes of many religions.

So it seems to me for these reasons and more, that you are promoting certain indoctrinations and superstitions of which you are fairly ignorant, whilst condemning others... and that is inconsistent with reason and rationality.

I know this will come across to some as a defence of religion, it's more an attempt to promote a rational, objective consideration of the few facts of which we are not ignorant. That consistency is paramount when claiming to be rational... you cannot justly promote one belief and knock another for being irrational, in my fairly humble opinion.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Okay, how can a religious organization keep someone from getting condoms?

The Catholic Church do a pretty good job of it.

Please explain. How do they do that?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So you think it is all right to deprive a group of people of their freedom of speech if they believe in hell, if some members of the group have commited child abuse, and if they have some different ideas than you about marriage?

If in the course of their beliefs they then use them to stop people from getting married and living a happy life, yes. The point here Harold is are you going to uphold one liberty of one group of people even though they seek to take away the liberty of another when the other is not seeking to do the same to them?

It's kind of like saying its OK for a burglar to steal from their house, and we who can stop this from happening to these poor people from being stolen from, yet do nothing to help them. And for that matter innocent others that are minding their own business when a group of religious brainwashed people come in introducing legislation saying that they can't get married because some 2000 year old book says they can't? What's going on?

Would you let modern nazis have freedom to demonstrate and promote their ideas and opinions openly?
Would you allow the KKK do the same publicly?

Yes. Absolutely. It is guaranteed under the US Constitution.

Of course not, this is NO different and our conditioning that we must for some reason respect religion because it is religion is absurd. I will personally not stand by here and let a religious organisation that is founded on ignorance interfere in politics, education and society as a whole. They inflict disease upon the mind, they are waging a war against rationality and if we stand by and do nothing they will win.

I understand in older years of your life it is easy to take a neutral stance Harold, but the world doesn't see things the same and these radical groups certaintly do not. They won't stop until everyone is living under religious doctrine. If they want to believe in God, fine. If they want to believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, fine. But when they cross the line and inflict damage on people by interfering in others lives and rights that's where we have to step in and say no.

You are the one proposing to interfere with people's rights by passing a law.

I need to break this into two posts as it will not allow me to post in one set:

Originally Posted by question for you

But it occurs to me that you are turning a blind eye to the fact that you have been indoctrinated with beliefs and opinions that could be considered irrational, religious or even superstitious.

Irrational? - Not based on rationality? I uphold that the freedom of individuals is utmost, that humans are all equal and do not deserve to be treated with bigotry. I constantly analyze the context of such attitude and monitor my own personal feelings and emotions and always maintain an objective eye as much as possible. I wouldn't call that irrational.

Religious? - I wouldn't say my stance on certain issues of certain cults and groups is religious, as that would imply following a set group of rules of faith and worshiping/believing in a supernatural being. My stance is hardly so.

Superstitious? - I don't think that my opinions of superstitious at all. I'd love to understand where you found that dissertation from.

There is much that is irrational about current education, society and even your comment.

I agree on the former parts, and I don't think my comment was irrational, perhaps some issues I am raising are which is why I am asking the question, could you elaborate on which parts you think were?

There is too much of a contradiction in this position of yours...

Please elaborate, I cannot understand if you don't explain. Are you referring to my wanting to make religious advertisement illegal is an equal to the indoctrination of people by religion? If so I want to point out that stopping a group from causing harm by virtue of committing harmful practices is not the same as allowing a group committing harmful practices.

...especially considering it is a position that you have either consciously or subconsciously indoctrinated by.

I was once indoctrinated and passionately followed exactly what it is that I now oppose. I wouldn't say my stance is an indoctrination as I hold freedom of speech and freedoms in high regard, my question here is that should we allow advertisement of groups that wish to indoctrinate others with false beliefs and practices which can have extreme detrimental effects on their psyche as happened with me.

It is actually religion that had caused a lot of my beliefs to be as they were, I was homophobic, sexist, often had genocidal considerations, horrific nightmares as a child of hell and burning fire (I still have these, rarely but not absent) all because of my experience with religion and a religious upbringing. If anything my extreme attitude on some issues sometimes without consideration is the fault of religion, which is why I ask the question 'should' it be illegal to advertise religion as I have come around to a rational and democratic, skeptic mindset about the world and issues of the world instead of seeing it as black and white (again thanks to religion).

These are not even your opinions, you are expressing the opinions of people who have affected your thinking and beliefs.

Indeed, this does not make them any less credible. I have learned to be skeptic and objective, rationally minded by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, these men in particular with their literature have answered many great questions I have asked and have made me feel better about myself and opened me up from repression that religion had taught me. Along the way, the opinions I have been exposed to have taught me to question reality, to understand others point of views, to rationalize reality with logic and evidence. I would hardly use that as a negative spin, its a great thing!

I'm not trying to say the beliefs are right or wrong... but they are human and so they are deeply ignorant, irrational and the result of indoctrination.

Absolutely I agree, right and wrong and very loose black and white terms that are difficult to shake. But the part you mention about them being human yes they are, the difference is that an objective viewpoint that considers the evidence and makes a stance that others are entitled to freedom from bigotry and hatred is hardly an ignorant or irrational one. If anything the doctrine I learn of science is a far better alternative than one of religion/faith as it teaches to be objective and understanding, critical instead of openly receptive, that is a very much needed trait in today's world.

No offence intended... this is just an irrational perspective that occurs to me due to my unavoidable ignorance and possibly resulting from some kind of indoctrination.

None taken, I like to learn as much as I can from others and hope that I can help others learn a little too, even if it is just a better understanding of each other. I don't think humans are ignorant intentionally, we still have the emotional centers of our brains interfering with our logic which is where it is difficult to maintain a logical and evidence based mindset on the world. Indoctrination I find in the sense of the word is often thrown around as some kind of stigma, it depends on the doctrine. Doctrine is just really a policy, the policy of science is to question everything, the doctrine of religion is to accept everything that religious book and figures tell you. I'd say the former is a more promising one and definitely the sane persons choice.

P.s, you really lost me with the stuff about people preventing other people from undergoing a religious ritual called married which forgive me if i'm mistaken, you seem to imply is a key to leading a happy life.

I do not imply anything, my issue was that it is none of any religious or any groups business, what other human beings do with their lives, and that they have no right to interfere.

If your anti religion and indoctrinated beleif then I wonder why you mention the right of people to partake in this particular religious ceremony as if it is so totally natural?

I don't understand are you saying that it is questionable that marriage is natural? I don't understand the question. We live in a society that has evolved a morality that says freedom to all and respect to one another. Religious organizations do not allow this, some do and yet most don't. It is often the ones that don't that are protesting against gay marriage and harassing gay couples, atheists, atheist politicians and teaches. There is a very real threat to rationality and freedom to the non-religious in America at the moment in particular let alone in Muslim centric countries.

If your anti religion then why would you care about the rights of Gay people to marry?

What has my stance on religion got to do with the right for gay people to marry? I am fine with people believing in God and people getting married if they are gay, the difference between me and religious organizations is that I am not interfering in another's right to do so. I would never work to stop people believing in God, just work to stop them stopping others from living their own lives and doing what they want to do/exercising their freedoms.

Why would Gay people want to be part of a religion which condemns their adopted lifestyle?

I'm not sure, I didn't suggest that in my post, are you creating a new question here or implying I meant this in my post? If so I did not, I don't understand what you mean. Why would a gay couple be part of a religion that condemns their lifestyle? I can't see why they would, there certainly may be people who do but I don't know them to be able t say why.

It all seems quite irrational to me and that's just being honest rather than intentionally provocative.

I'm not sure on what part of the discussion you are referring to here, my point or your point you raised?

If anything I think what we are seeing in mainstream society is an indoctrination of people resulting in an impassioned and irrational beleif that they need to fight against all religions and beliefs...

I wouldn't call it irrational at all, and it certainly isn't acted upon by a 'belief'. I don't also understand where you get the dissertation that anti-religious want to attack 'all beliefs' it seems like you just made that up. An anti-religious person is against organized religion, there is nothing wrong with believing in whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect the rest of us. Am I against the religious organizations that spread lies that condoms causes aids? Of course I am. Am I against religious organisations that say it is ok to not educate women? To stone people to death for leaving that religion? Of course I am. I find it hard to think that people are OK with it, I actually find it rather inconsiderate, harmful and cruel to not be concerned about them.

I personally feel this particular argument is simply an attack on religion by people who do not care about the rights of Gays, so much as they care about the demise of religious institutions.

I'm sorry I don't understand again what is going on here, where are you coming up with the assumption that attacks on religion is also an attack on the rights of gay people? I find this actually very offensive actually I would like very much to know why you are saying this and implying it because it simply is not so.

If a Man wants to love and live with another man, and a religion tells him it is wrong, then how on Earth can it be considered rational for that man to want to follow the indoctrinated rituals prescribed by said religion?

Indeed, but again I do not understand what you are saying again I have not raised this topic at all so I am amiss as to what you are talking about. I haven't raised a point about homosexual people being part of a religion that also condemns their behavior. I really do not understand what you are saying with this as I have not brought that up at all.

Don't get me wrong... I don't have an opinion on whether it would be best to erradicate organised religion or not. Though I cannot comprehend the notion than we can get rid of irrational beleifs, or superstitions based on ignorance because I cannot ignore the fact that these things, particularly ignorance, are a fundamental part of the Human condition.

One that can be fixed with education and enlightenment, which isn't going to happen if fundamental religious organizations carry on and recruit members which do so by praying on the weak and advertising it very often, I have had a friend visit America and he told me religion was everywhere and when feeling down even as an atheist he said he was tempted to 'walk to god'. It isn't advertising, its brainwashing and it is incredibly dangerous.

We cannot get rid of irrational beliefs of course not, but we can educate people to a rational mindset of thought and skepticism instead of openly accepting a belief without having thought of it because it is convenient.

For me, it is better the devil we know, than the devil we don't.

That is an ignorant statement completely. all I have seen from you is to make up this point that ignorance is somehow wound into human nature and that makes it absolutely acceptable for you to remain ignorant on the subject yourself and that we may live in a sea of mutual ignorance. Sounds evil to me, and I'd rather we get rid of this 'devil' that we have in hopes that we might get rid of them forever.

Also, I couldn't help notice that my education tried to indoctrinate me into many beliefs and supostitions, it was bassically a religious endevour as far as I could see, they tried to make me believe in and dedicate my life to serving an unfair, hypocritical system of society which obviously benefits the few far more than it benefits the many. They also tried to indoctrinate me into a moral and ethical code which is almost identical in affect to the moral and ethical codes of many religions.

This is what I'm talking about! This needs to stop, their behavior has made an imprint in you and as it equally has me. The rational viewpoint is to question that what we hold true. I have to constantly because of how it has been so deeply etched into me as early as early infancy and that it has taken time for me to change what I come to see as true, and that now it has come a very long way and I see and feel a lot more than I did before and it all came from questioning!

So it seems to me for these reasons and more, that you are promoting certain indoctrinations and superstitions of which you are fairly ignorant, whilst condemning others... and that is inconsistent with reason and rationality.

Again, the moral belief that says live and let live is absolutely honorable, this is this 'indoctrination' you keep referring to me about. I can assure you it is very noble and there is nothing superstitious about it, nor ignorant. I will condemn those that violate this right and criticize them for their actions against others and their attempts to take away their freedoms, rights and way of life. That is very empathic and altruistic, and a fundamental behavior of our evolution - to help one another and to protect those who come under harm... I wouldn't hardly call THAT unreasonable.

I know this will come across to some as a defence of religion, it's more an attempt to promote a rational, objective consideration of the few facts of which we are not ignorant. That consistency is paramount when claiming to be rational... you cannot justly promote one belief and knock another for being irrational.

You're right, it is biased. To imply what you are saying to be true implies what I have opened for consideration is irrational and non-objective, and this is clearly not the case otherwise I would not be asking this question to others for consideration in the first place, I would be down the mall with a pen, a clipboard and a 'solution to all your problems'.

We have plenty of facts and those facts say that religious organizations are causing harm to humanity, as a member of humanity I feel obliged to help each other.

Your final point about promoting one belief and knocking another? I promote rationality, I promote that these organizations can believe what they want. What I am 'knocking' is their self proclaimed 'right' to take away another rights in the name of 'god' aka 'ego'.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Please explain. How do they do that?

MrMojo1 has provided you with an answer to that already.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Yes. Absolutely. It is guaranteed under the US Constitution.

The right to be bigoted and teach unsubstantiated propaganda? The Constitution needs amending again. Perhaps a new system on what is ok and what is not, our morality is evolving and older constitutions needs correcting as they already have been.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You are the one proposing to interfere with people's rights by passing a law.

Again it is this question, the right to impose irrationality, bigotry and religious hatred causing malice and harm, as opposed to my wanting to pass a law to stop that. Again you are using this universal 'rights' as if it is the high end morality of everything, that valuing everybody free speech and expression as opposed to the suffering of other people.

The choice is, do you let others suffer miserably or simply stop a group of people acting maliciously that inflict that suffering?

They have the right to be bigoted.

Here's how I see it; You're making valid points- that the stuff they teach is a real influence for many people. But it's also one of a great many influences and people will lean in the direction they are most inclined, anyway.

The religion is just an enabler for what they want.

By enforcing a law on it, it's no better, really, than what the church is doing. Because while the church is a choice, the law is the law.

Humanity just meddles way too much. Really, it's best to not encourage more meddling. Let those that fall for church propaganda fall for it.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Okay, how can a religious organization keep someone from getting condoms?

By telling them that using one is a mortal evil, and consequently putting their souls or access to heaven at risk. In short fear of going to hell. And when that fails, just lie to create fear.

So they are not actually forcing anybody to do anything. That's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So they are not actually forcing anybody to do anything. That's what I thought.

Inaccurate. Those that hold beliefs treat them as facts. Those that believe in a salvation/hell afterlife see that threat as tangible. You under estimate the power of beliefs.

In other areas of Africa, Middle East, and the Far East there is a child killing going on due to some other religions demanding witches to be killed.

Child Witches: Accused in the Name of Jesus

Child Witches

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

So they are not actually forcing anybody to do anything. That's what I thought.

Inaccurate. Those that hold beliefs treat them as facts. Those that believe in a salvation/hell afterlife see that threat as tangible. You under estimate the power of beliefs.

As long as the religion is not mandatory, I don't see the problem.

In other areas of Africa, Middle East, and the Far East there is a child killing going on due to some other religions demanding witches to be killed.

Child Witches: Accused in the Name of Jesus

Child Witches

If there is a Christian missionary somewhere that helps people, then by your way of thinking, Christianity should be compulsory.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

As long as the religion is not mandatory, I don't see the problem.

Harold, while I don't agree with some of what's been said- pointed out the problem of enforcement being hypocritical, what Quantime and MrMojo is saying has a very specific merit that deserves critical attention.

I agree that the law cannot infringe on belief.

However, the reality of just how severe belief can be should not be ignored simply because it is it's equal to deny it legally.
Belief, taught from a very early age, can be damning. It can overwhelm rational thought. A person would be willing to do things they believe are wrong, even, should they also believe that it is their Gods will--- Such as killing a person for condemning the Muslim faith. It's a bit odd for an atheist like me to truly comprehend, how one can believe in something so strongly that they could give themselves into it so fully.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

As long as the religion is not mandatory, I don't see the problem.

Irrelevant, your perspective or beliefs are inconsequential. You asked how a religious organization keeps people from getting condoms? Answer, they leverage the dogma wrapped around their belief and the lie about how condoms work.

If there is a Christian missionary somewhere that helps people, then by your way of thinking, Christianity should be compulsory.

Irrelevant to the subject at hand. The issue isn't compelling people believe in faith, they already believe. Belief by itself is a private mental activity which harms no one. The harm\benefit is compelling people to behave a certain manner on the basis of doctrine or rituals. In the examples I've provided, there are members of a religious organization which blatantly are dictating behavior that harms people. When church leaders use terms such as "moral evil" or "facilitation of evil" they are using the doctrine of "sin" as a fear tactic.

Basically, sin marks the believers "soul" and this soul is damned to hell at birth (doctrine of original sin). The only way to clean this soul is by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior (washing yourself in the blood of Jesus) so that you are born again clean. Then the believer must follow the doctrines of that particular faith to stay clean, and follow the doctrine of atonement for any future sins. It is in essence an elaborate doctrine of fear.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

As long as the religion is not mandatory, I don't see the problem.

Irrelevant, your perspective or beliefs are inconsequential. You asked how a religious organization keeps people from getting condoms? Answer, they leverage the dogma wrapped around their belief and the lie about how condoms work.

No, it isn't irrelevant. Anybody who wants a condom can get one. That's free choice.

If there is a Christian missionary somewhere that helps people, then by your way of thinking, Christianity should be compulsory.

Irrelevant to the subject at hand. The issue isn't compelling people believe in faith, they already believe. Belief by itself is a private mental activity which harms no one. The harm\benefit is compelling people to behave a certain manner on the basis of doctrine or rituals. In the examples I've provided, there are members of a religious organization which blatantly are dictating behavior that harms people. When church leaders use terms such as "moral evil" or "facilitation of evil" they are using the doctrine of "sin" as a fear tactic.

In the example I provided there are members of a religious organization which blatantly are dictating behavior that helps people. The opposite of helping is harming. Therefore to prevent harm, the religion must be compulsory. This is a logical extension of your line of thought.

Basically, sin marks the believers "soul" and this soul is damned to hell at birth (doctrine of original sin). The only way to clean this soul is by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior (washing yourself in the blood of Jesus) so that you are born again clean. Then the believer must follow the doctrines of that particular faith to stay clean, and follow the doctrine of atonement for any future sins. It is in essence an elaborate doctrine of fear.

I am not interested in a theological discussion.

I wish to add that not all religious beliefs and/or superstitions are harmful to one's mental health; although some are. As in most discussions of this nature; I get the feeling that this discussion is revolves around the abrahamic religions, and does not encompass other religious superstitious practices such as those found in other cultures. As an example, I wish to ask what harm comes from the superstitious funerary practices or New Year traditions of a superstitious nature; say from Chinese folk religions?

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

I wish to add that not all religious beliefs and/or superstitions are harmful to one's mental health

Superstition will prevent you from seeing the world properly. Religion is irrational and one of its tools to make you believe in the irrational is superstition. Go back a few centuries and you find long lines of pilgrims walking for days and weeks on end to holy shrines. When they got there they needed plenty of money in their pockets to buy themselves out of purgatory (the sale of indulgences) and if they wanted a miracle from the relics of a saint they had to pay for that also. If they didn't have money they were told that they would end up in purgatory until hopefully someone prayed for their soul. This was probably the start of the real hard sell and commercialization of religion.
Now doesn't this point to the biggest financial fraud in history? The church grew so incredibly rich that today the catholic version is worth at least a trillion bucks. And if you think that this can't happen now then think again. In Nigeria some pastors are worth more than the oil barons there. How do they do it? They fake miracles of course!

Originally Posted by Quantime

I was once indoctrinated and passionately followed exactly what it is that I now oppose. I wouldn't say my stance is an indoctrination as I hold freedom of speech and freedoms in high regard, my question here is that should we allow advertisement of groups that wish to indoctrinate others with false beliefs and practices which can have extreme detrimental effects on their psyche as happened with me.

It is actually religion that had caused a lot of my beliefs to be as they were, I was homophobic, sexist, often had genocidal considerations, horrific nightmares as a child of hell and burning fire (I still have these, rarely but not absent) all because of my experience with religion and a religious upbringing. If anything my extreme attitude on some issues sometimes without consideration is the fault of religion, which is why I ask the question 'should' it be illegal to advertise religion as I have come around to a rational and democratic, skeptic mindset about the world and issues of the world instead of seeing it as black and white (again thanks to religion).

Thankyou for your detailed response quantime. I can't respond to all you have said as there is a lot.

I'm sorry to hear about your natural capacity to fear being exploited in order to manipulate your behaviour, and I dont think it is any good at all that this goes on so much particularly, if not almost entirely, in America. I have seen some of these crazy preachers in the USA and children being indoctrinated, I find it a cause for serious concern.

I cannot say I have witnessed this form of extreme devil fearing religion in any other modern day country, but it seems to have gone on a lot during the dark ages... what with mercinary monks etc...
I think it important for you to realise this is only one form, one brand of religion which seems very specific to America at present, the important thing is that there are other and much more decent and noble brands of religion being practiced around the world... forms of religion that probably do far more good than they do harm to the beleivers and the the rest of those societies. It is critical that you understand this, which ofcourse you do.

I'm glad you accept that many of your current opinions are a direct result of the indoctrinations you were subjected to... is it not possible that this severe form of devil fearing beleif was invented specifically to turn people like you fiercely against religion as a whole? think about it.
I'm sure you accept that some religion can be good, but your personal experiences, and those of other religious people you know, are so dominant in you psyche that you make almost sweeping statements about the negativity of religion, without being fully, if at all, conscious of the better brands and forms of religion that do and can exist.

That for me my fellow human is getting to the crux of the situation... Some forms of religion might serve to kill others. Evil forms of religion might have been invented and implemented in order to kill much better forms of religion. Please consider that carefully.

You admit your stance is a result of your religious experiences... I know your not stupid, far from it.

I am not a member of the global elite... I do not know why such policies are implemented in the new found land which is america, all I can do is spectulate based on the observations I make. I notice in a lot of americans, an attitude much like yours. You personally have admitted your attitude, your anti religion 'agenda', if you like, is a direct result of the experience you have had, so think about it again and again... The people who run the world are not stupid in the slightest, though they apparently can be quite callous. There is a reason that the newest country in the world has the most archaic brand of religion running through its core, though im not entirely clear on the exact reasons, one can be sure it is to do with a global domination and power accumalation plan.

In my country, as with many other well established countries, religion is much more liberal, much more enlightened. The preist etc do not focus on a few sinister passages in a few sinister versions of ancient books... they focus more on 'love thy neighbour as thy love thyself', 'turn the other cheek', and lots of stuff about love, rather than fear. It still serves to manipulate and indoctrinate but as you have pointed out... some indoctrination can be good. In my country, even religious people can sit and discuss rationally the good and bad points in their respective religions.

Personally due to my experiences and observations of the good that is taught by many religions... I worry about the 'breed' of religious or previously religious people from particularly america, and possibly the middle east which is harder for me to judge as I do not speak those languages, who due to their indoctrination into a horrible faith, now want to destroy religion as a whole... people who are currently fighting against religion as a whole due to the religious indoctrination they have endured, is a concern for me. I can asure you some religion can make people very happy, very strong mentally and emotionally and very contented with their lives.

Richard Dawkins seems to be the number one prophet of anti religion and 'rational thought' at present, he will be fully aware of the religious 'condition' in places like america and surely even the middle east.. though I can almost garentee you he personaly has not been subjected to a religion anywhere near as devil fearing as the one you speak of.

This rational thought agenda is the free mason agenda... which is ironic... as it was free masons who gave you your brand of devil fearing religion aswell. Thats deserves carful consideration.

Personally I plead with you to give this some good thought, and I ask you please when you criticise religion and fight against religion that you make sure, you dont use the word 'religion' on it's own... please always qualify your comments with 'fundamentalist, or devil fearing or whatever it is that will distinguish the type of religion you are considering, from the type of religion that I have mentioned. because I honestly feel that spiritual beleif or faith can be a very good thing... and spiritual faith is at the heart of religion.

It's a very complex matter and the type of brainwashing you speak of is wrong I agree... but that doesnt mean spiritual faith is wrong, or that religion in itself is wrong.

So just to reiterate, from my personal supicions, the indoctrination you recieved was intentionally designed to make you anti religious. I think the reason for that was: That true religion has served it's purpose to breed a bunch of people who will conform to society's ethical and moral code and work to establish society... and now society is so well establish that the leaders think it will be more profitable and easier to manipulate the masses by removing the God authority, and replacing it with man authority. Aka the babylon system... probably whilst at the same time, maintaining a strong ellement of God beleivers so that the massses are permanently divided and conquored.

If you cannot tell already... I am not a scholar of history or religion, but this is what my instincts tell me.

I agree that intense devil fearing is a very bad thing, I think fear altogether is a very bad thing and it should be illegal to use fear to exploit others... but making it illegal to exploit others is the complete oposite of 'freedom'... which in my current opinion, is not a bad thing. I have come to the opinion that restricting the liberties of people who want to exploit others, is a very good thing. You cant have freedom for all the people all the time, it's a choice between giving the rich freedom to dominate the masses, or giving the masses freedom to live without being exploited by the rich. Members of the common masses who bang on about freedom and liberty for all, need to be careful what they wish for.


P.s... as for the stuff about gays, lets forget it. The point was that, that argument of gays rights is being used as a weapon in the fight against religion, much like female bishops etc... and for me, it's a silly argument, because the people who use it think themselves to be anti-religion and yet fully conform to the religious ritual known as holly matrimony.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

That's free choice.

So the choices are for believers:
1. Do as we instruct and you will get salvation. The reward we've telling you about since you were a child.
2. Oppose us and you will be eternally damn to a fate worse then death. Death will only be the beginning of infinite torture.

Do you actually think within the mind of a true believer that this equates to free choice? It parallels an agreement made under duress. I don't think you appreciate that going to hell is very tangible fear for believers (e.g. Andrea Yates, Jesus Camp Movie).

In the example I provided there are members of a religious organization which blatantly are dictating behavior that helps people. The opposite of helping is harming. Therefore to prevent harm, the religion must be compulsory. This is a logical extension of your line of thought.

I don't think I understand your use of the word compulsory. Unless you live in a theocratic state, joining a religion isn't compulsory. To stay in good standing within that faith, there are doctrines and rituals which are compulsory. If you disobey them, you are counseled and encourage to get back on track (atonement doctrine again). If you persist in bad behavior, then there are varying levels of expulsion. This include being label an apostate or heretic, with penalties that include shunning, or excommunication. Typically, the counselling with a little "you don't what to damn your soul do you" peep talk does the trick. Is this what you mean by compulsory?

I am not interested in a theological discussion.

I cited the actual words used by church leaders and explained how the doctrines prevent people from making a free choice. Where is the relevance of "helping" as it relates condoms and the church discouraging their use to the point lying about their effectiveness? If you do not understand what the doctrines are and how they affect behavior, how can you ascertain the mindset of a believer of that faith? You may think\know witches do not actually exist, the other reality is that people are still being punished and killed for sorcery. The motivation behind these acts is purely religious based, therefore belief and adherence to doctrine plays a roll.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

That's free choice.

So the choices are for believers:
1. Do as we instruct and you will get salvation. The reward we've telling you about since you were a child.
2. Oppose us and you will be eternally damn to a fate worse then death. Death will only be the beginning of infinite torture.

Do you actually think within the mind of a true believer that this equates to free choice? It parallels an agreement made under duress. I don't think you appreciate that going to hell is very tangible fear for believers (e.g. Andrea Yates, Jesus Camp Movie).

The free choices are: (1) believe or not (2) believe and use condoms anyway or not, (3) disbelieve and use condoms or not.

In the example I provided there are members of a religious organization which blatantly are dictating behavior that helps people. The opposite of helping is harming. Therefore to prevent harm, the religion must be compulsory. This is a logical extension of your line of thought.

I don't think I understand your use of the word compulsory. Unless you live in a theocratic state, joining a religion isn't compulsory.

The logic is very simple. If you think it is a good idea to dictate disbelief in a religion, in order to accomplish a good, then it must be equally as good to dictate belief in a religion if you think it is essential to accomplish a good. At a time or place when a large majority of people did or do believe that a particular religion was essential to promote good, then that religion was compulsory. You are the philosophical heir of those people, only what you are promoting is compulsory atheism, instead of some particular religion.

You have given an example of someone causing harm by a religious belief. Based on this, you think it is a good idea to pass a law to discourage that religious belief. I have given an example of someone causing help due to their religious beliefs. I could point out that someone who does not have such religious belief would not be doing that particular helpful action. Therefore, by being an unbeliever, you are preventing the help from reaching the needy person. You need to be stopped from this harmful activity. Do you see the logic?

To stay in good standing within that faith, there are doctrines and rituals which are compulsory. If you disobey them, you are counseled and encourage to get back on track (atonement doctrine again). If you persist in bad behavior, then there are varying levels of expulsion. This include being label an apostate or heretic, with penalties that include shunning, or excommunication. Typically, the counselling with a little "you don't what to damn your soul do you" peep talk does the trick. Is this what you mean by compulsory?

I am not interested in a theological discussion.

I cited the actual words used by church leaders and explained how the doctrines prevent people from making a free choice. Where is the relevance of "helping" as it relates condoms and the church discouraging their use to the point lying about their effectiveness? If you do not understand what the doctrines are and how they affect behavior, how can you ascertain the mindset of a believer of that faith? You may think\know witches do not actually exist, the other reality is that people are still being punished and killed for sorcery. The motivation behind these acts is purely religious based, therefore belief and adherence to doctrine plays a roll.

I don't care what peoples motivations are. It doesn't concern me. Only their actions do.

Originally Posted by ox

Superstition will prevent you from seeing the world properly.

If you meant objectively instead of "properly", I'd agree.

Originally Posted by ox

Religion is irrational and one of its tools to make you believe in the irrational is superstition.

People may be irrational, religions are anything but irrational; their narrative (although highly doubtful and speculative) is rather specific at times.

Originally Posted by ox

Go back a few centuries and you find long lines of pilgrims walking for days and weeks on end to holy shrines.

Pilgrimages need not be religious, they can be spiritual as well. And when I use the word spiritual, I meant it in a non-religious sense. It can be something as simple as walking in the footsteps of those before us to a destination of some importance; that brings us a little closer to our ancestors for example.

Originally Posted by ox

When they got there they needed plenty of money in their pockets to buy themselves out of purgatory (the sale of indulgences) and if they wanted a miracle from the relics of a saint they had to pay for that also. If they didn't have money they were told that they would end up in purgatory until hopefully someone prayed for their soul. This was probably the start of the real hard sell and commercialization of religion.
Now doesn't this point to the biggest financial fraud in history? The church grew so incredibly rich that today the catholic version is worth at least a trillion bucks. And if you think that this can't happen now then think again. In Nigeria some pastors are worth more than the oil barons there. How do they do it? They fake miracles of course!

Again, this seems to be revolving around the abrahamic genre of religions. Since when did they alone become synonymous with the word "religion"? This is why I have brought up Chinese folk religions and some of their superstitious beliefs in funerary and New Year practices as an example.

Unless of course, it is only a specific genre of them that is to be made illegal.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The free choices are: (1) believe or not (2) believe and use condoms anyway or not, (3) disbelieve and use condoms or not.

This is erroneous. This is the decision tree of a non-believer, someone who has express doubts about their faith, but not one that believes. The believer believes her/his faith is true, thus option one is not valid. Option 2 may be one consider by one that distrust the Vatican authority. If there is some gradient where you could chart Papal Infallibility from belief to disbelief, then I can accept that a believer may ignore a Papal command. There would likely still be some guilt or concern if using the condom was "evil" in god eyes. The fear of going to hell is strong. Lastly, if the believer no longer believes in her\his faith, then the point is moot what the Papal authority says.

You have given an example of someone causing harm by a religious belief. Based on this, you think it is a good idea to pass a law to discourage that religious belief...

I've never claim this. I specifically answered your question :

Okay, how can a religious organization keep someone from getting condoms?

I've only explained the method and motivation of keeping believers from using condoms.

I don't care what peoples motivations are. It doesn't concern me. Only their actions do.

Noted. Some other people are concerned with why. For some understanding the intent and motivation can be key to resolving issues. These issue may stem from external environment forces, maturity and mental state. For example, in the early 20th century irradiation of the thymus was thought to be the cure for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Should the medical staff where patient treatment lead to cancer of the thyroid and other tumors have been arrested and charged with a crime? The answer can only be known by researching into all pertinent factors.

The Right Place at the Wrong Time: Historical Perspective of the Relation of the Thymus Gland and Pediatric Radiology

Another thought is that if 'advertising' otherwise known as 'publicity' of religion or superstition was prohibeted by law... then we wouldn't be allowed to hold this conversation in public.

It also means any kind of discussion of religion would be banned, as it could all be considered advertising... I base this on the proverb: No publicity is bad publicity.

Originally Posted by Quantime

What do you think of this? Advertising of religion such as scientology, the catholic church, palm reading and other superstitious hogwash such as ghost hunts? I know that there is a right to free speech but to what extent is this kind of advertising going to brainwash people? Then affecting their mental health? Surely we value the mentality of children and vulnerable minded people yes? If they are being suggestive as to having the solution to their problems yet have no scientifically verified way to prove their claims is it not classed as psychological abuse for profit?

This is a fundamental question I have been struggling with. Why is it unacceptable for an organisation to physically inflict pain on someone or an organisation to inflict physical abuse but its openly fine for them to subject others to all kinds of psychological abuse and after they have, here comes more religion and superstition waiting to make a profit off of their suffering. Makes me sick, if they are going to abuse people like that, then how do they deserve free speech to promote their ignorant teachings? Should there be a limit? Should we have a few decades of rigorous political change regarding religion and superstition? Or a general law that says if religion or superstition has caused on psychological trauma that they should be prosecuted?

How much longer are we going to permit free speech and freedom to criminals and crooks. This is a fundamental question I have been asking, is it right to do this? Do we value the freedom and free speech so much more than the suffering of the people they are hurting?

It is one fundamental absolute basis of morality battling against another. Where is the fine line here between this, and its extreme; the holocaust? We are in trying times of thought and it seems nobody wants to ask these questions, these VERY dangerous questions.

Please keep an objective mind in answering this question if it offends; please do not allow ego involved here either or the defending of 'values'. This is a very serious question I am struggling with. Please help. With one final note, it has been said that although Democracy works and it is the best system of politics we have compared to the others, it is still a terrible one. And as long as democracy seems to keep this question out of consideration, maybe we should consider it which is why I put forth this original question: Should advertising of religious and superstition be illegal?

Thanks.

I don't know about wether "advertising-religious-superstition" should be illegal, but what I do think is that in our society we have put an extra value upon being children in general and as such we as a society are duty bound to protect them from all sources of potential harm but strangely this does seem to somehow exclude any psycholigical damage that religious indoctrination may do. I kind of feel that as a society wanting to protect one's children is a good thing but this extra value idea is wrong because to often what it means is that once someone becomes an adult (turns 18) they are not given the same support or protection, a person should have the same value and protection whatever their age. Yet we all know that people don't all mature at the same rate, a 16 year old could be far more independant and able to make good choices than a 20 year old in some cases. So what I think is needed is that rather than things being based on an arbitary age is that there could be some type of competency test such as for the choice in becoming an active participant of a particular religion. I would also think the same for people coming out of care, that the support mechanism is still provided for those who need it whilst ever they do. Also we have a binge drinking epidemic here in UK and if we could have a way in which only competent and responisble people are allowed alchol, based again on an assessment then that wouldn't be a bad thing. But no, just because people might be considered 'old enough' to make their own descisions it doesn't always mean they are actually capable or ready for that, so we could and in my should introduce some sort of assessment to stop the young and vunerable being taken advantage of and indoctrinated into dodgy religions and cults.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I don't care what peoples motivations are. It doesn't concern me. Only their actions do.

Is this universal or only applicable to the topic?

Hey Quantime,


I do enjoy your posts and rebuttals, I have already posted on your poll asking, "When did you realize there is no god?".


"Fundamental" is exactly what we need to look at here. What keeps us believing, "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" or "Money is the root of all evil" or what is even the difference between, "The ruling class" (I hate that name), "High class", "Middle Class", "Low Class", etc? It's what they all believe. It's what they teach their children. It's how they teach their children. "The ruling class", which I shall rename them as, "The miserly", not only agree with you, but they depend on everyone below their station to live, breathe, and love those concepts of religion, superstition, etc. Without those concepts, the miserly wouldn't have a high station, we'd all be equal. There would be no middle and low class, we'd all be high class. poverty would cease to exist, homelessness would be a mere memory. The miserly thrive on it all, and where do you think most of the miserly have jobs at? There would never be laws or taxes (most likely not) against those concepts, because it would make everyone either revolt or become high class as well.


A way to stop this all is to namely teach children WHY none of that stuff actually exists, so they would teach their children, and them, their children, etc. The metaphysicists call it "The law of attraction" and the actual science to read up on would be quantum physics. Let me give an example. I've done my research, and a lot of thought about this. If you go to a fortune teller, psychic, whatever, and the psychic tells you, "You are going to come into money real soon." Something vague, to lead more to the imagination. IF you THOROUGHLY believe what the psychic told you, then it WILL happen. If you have doubts, it may still happen, but the chances of it happening would significantly be reduced. If you don't believe in it at all, it will not happen. To explain further, quantum physics - or the law of attraction - states that whatever you are focused on, you give more mental energy to. The psychic plants the seed of good or bad news, and you focus on it, get happy or sad about it, and you ultimately get it; in the case of money, up to what you subconsciously believe you can receive. Some areas of quantum physics state if you give too much thought to something, then you are actually having doubts, because you are indeed giving thought to not having what you are trying to obtain.


The same can be applied to seeing/hearing/feeling God. If you FIRMLY believe in God, and know he is with you, and PRAY about something, you will get it. Giving thought to something, playing with the idea, feeling like you have it already, and pushing it to the back of your mind (subconscious), you get it. That's EXACTLY what the Bible states. "Ask and you shall receive", "Ask God for it, and leave it in his hands", "All you need is faith the size of a grain of a mustard seed, and you can move mountains", etc. Why does all of this work even for atheists such as myself, especially when Jesus said - in the Bible - he would turn a deaf ear to those who do not seek his forgiveness? That is something else to think about.


Even further, the same could be applied to ghosts. Some of my best friends believe in ghosts, believe they can see or hear ghosts. The brain controls everything in your body. If a loved one passes, and you give so much thought to him/her, and you have the belief of some sort of afterlife, or that your spirit can be stuck here on Earth before going to that afterlife for an indefinite amount of time, depending on certain criteria, then your brain can make it all up, and give you a vision. (same applies to seeing God or an angel). I do, however believe in energy, and PERHAPS when we die, we could leave some energy behind, but I know nothing about that energy to state how long it would/could stay there; but to take a corporeal form, cause a din, wreak havoc, no. That in itself would fall to the law of attraction. Like my best friend, she firmly believes that she and all the females on her mom's side of the family can see those who have died but are stuck here on Earth. She sees them as silhouettes. You have some people who call them, shadow people or interdimensional travelers, where they only last for a few seconds, but my friend claims she sees them standing or sitting for long periods. I believe it is all in her head.


Let's not forget Hollywood. How they make movies that perpetuate lies. Where the protagonist believes he/she has a supernatural gift, and everyone calls her crazy and don't believe, until the end where it is all revealed, and/or is too late. This in itself gives hope to those who believe in the supernatural.


All in all, I agree with you completely. It should be illegal, but the hoaxes are perpetuated, and have been perpetuated for YEARS. My ultimate goal is to prove religion and other superstitions false. I'm not working as diligently as I could, but I am studying and reading more and more about it. As you stated, religion and the superstitions are killing us; and we keep making more and more babies whose heads are filled with it all. Yes, I believe in the law of attraction, but only because it is backed by a real science, quantum physics. I do entertain notions, reading more about it, and if they require belief or death to see proof, then I just write it off as a superstition.


~Gatene

Originally Posted by Gatene

All in all, I agree with you completely. It should be illegal, but the hoaxes are perpetuated, and have been perpetuated for YEARS. My ultimate goal is to put a stop to it all.

If you make it illegal to speak your beliefs, you can make it illegal to speak against beliefs. It's utter nonsense.
The rest of your post was very good. But you're missing out on a very important factor... It's human nature to believe. If it's not God, it's something else. That "law" would quickly become a slippery slope.

It's bad news for humanity over-all. There will always be a great many people who cannot handle a lack of belief. That will reject that which disables their need for an enabling belief to hold their view of the world together and simple enough for them to understand.
In the meantime, we pretty much need to keep it as smooth as we can by not oppressing people. We still must live together.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

If you make it illegal to speak your beliefs, you can make it illegal to speak against beliefs. It's utter nonsense.
The rest of your post was very good. But you're missing out on a very important factor... It's human nature to believe. If it's not God, it's something else. That "law" would quickly become a slippery slope.

It's bad news for humanity over-all. There will always be a great many people who cannot handle a lack of belief. That will reject that which disables their need for an enabling belief to hold their view of the world together and simple enough for them to understand.
In the meantime, we pretty much need to keep it as smooth as we can by not oppressing people. We still must live together.

Ack! I meant to put a stop to it as in to prove religion is false (I edited my post). Yes, I agree Neverfly, on all accounts; however, I see what religion and superstition does to my loved ones and humanity as a whole. It's a poison that keeps us stagnant, accepting of death being natural, and for some of us, keeps us stupid. I don't use that word loosely, but I consider the person I used to be as stupid, and there are lots of others who are just as how I was.

My fight isn't with a god, but with the ones that perpetuate the idea of god for their own selfishness. This could be because they know no other life, and are too lazy to go with a plan B once they realize themselves there is no god. I am lazy, but I am working against it, trying to not only better myself, but to help humanity. The solution has to be as intricate and tight-woven as the hoax itself, and looking back at my old life, it is VERY intricate and tight-woven.

So, I agree with Quantime and you. It won't be easy to do, and some would call it impossible, and could take a LOOONG time, but I believe it to be worthwhile and very possible. One more thing to add. I used to believe that if I found out there was no god, I would commit suicide. I did lose hope at first, but learning all that I have with the possibilities of a human life, I wouldn't dream of it. After all, like with religion, we each have a, "purpose". What that purpose is, is dependent on each individual's passion that helps humanity, and lets each individual live peacefully. There is no, "for the greater good", there is always a way to not sacrifice even one life, we just have to think of the solution.

Originally Posted by Gatene

Ack! I meant to put a stop to it as in to prove religion is false (I edited my post). Yes, I agree Neverfly, on all accounts; however, I see what religion and superstition does to my loved ones and humanity as a whole. It's a poison that keeps us stagnant, accepting of death being natural,

Do you feel that death is not natural? What gives you this idea?

and for some of us, keeps us stupid. I don't use that word loosely, but I consider the person I used to be as stupid, and there are lots of others who are just as how I was.

My fight isn't with a god, but with the ones that perpetuate the idea of god for their own selfishness.

How do you know their motives?

This could be because they know no other life, and are too lazy to go with a plan B once they realize themselves there is no god. I am lazy, but I am working against it, trying to not only better myself, but to help humanity.

Why do you think atheism will help humanity?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Do you feel that death is not natural? What gives you this idea?

It has been stated that the human brain CAN live for 10,000 years or more. If this is the case, and our bodies cannot, wouldn't death then be considered the ultimate disease in both senses of the word? A brain transplant can then be done every 60 or so years, and the human in question could live for 10,000 years or more, setting aside brain cancer, a brain aneurysm, some other brain disease, or unnatural causes. Of course there's also the humans who would like to have their conscious downloaded to a computer and live as a robot, but that is off-topic.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How do you know their motives?

Some religious leaders are atheists themselves. What else could be concluded other than they are selfish since they still perpetuate something they don't even believe in?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why do you think atheism will help humanity?

Perhaps atheism isn't the right word, but for the sake of getting off-topic, we will go with it. Considering you believe that religion and superstition aren't true; wouldn't you agree that they would then be a waste of time? People kill in the name of their beliefs, they get crazy and wild-eyed ideas and persecute those who have similar beliefs, but not the exact same. The list goes on. If everyone's sole purpose was to further humanity as a whole with their passion, and live life with happiness...wouldn't that be virtually a utopia? No more of anything that manipulates the mind, just pure living with unadulterated happiness? Sure, there are over what? 6 billion people on the planet, surely not everyone would agree with me, some cling to religion as their only hope, as their security blanket, as ways to cope with reality, same as with superstitions, drugs, alcoholism, etc, but without religion and superstition, people would then be free to think for themselves, instead of what the masses say is true.


If you believe the same could be said about my beliefs, then test them. Find what your passion is, help people with your passion, make money doing it, live happily, and tell me your honest opinion. My scenario above can be tested, and requires no belief or death to be proven. What can be called fact that does require a belief in or require one to die? Not religion, not a superstition..they require belief or death, and sometimes both.


Here's a short list...


- Most religions require belief and death. A person may see god, but cannot prove it to any one person
that didn't see the same thing. When the person dies, they either are proven that their god exists, or
not.

- Ghosts, same example. It requires belief, and in some cases, you have to die to see if you become a
ghost afterward, and most experts say that the ghosts don't even know they are ghosts.

- Psychics, pretty much the same example, you just have to believe, but you don't have to die.

- Reincarnation, people lie, people get their children to lie for their 15 minutes of fame, and you have to
die to be reincarnated, but remember nothing about a previous life, and if a person says they do,
remember, they can lie too (requires belief in that person).

- Law of attraction. As long as it is explained properly, it can be tested, and does not require belief or
death, it's a law.

- Law of gravity. We may can defy gravity, but when the anti-gravity mechanism fails, it too falls. It
requires no belief and no death to test.

- Aliens. Very tricky. It would be a massive waste of space for no other intelligent life to exist. Everything
as far as previous visitation, no matter the proofs scientists show, UFO sightings, and abduction stories
require belief in the person telling them. I am inclined to believe some stories, but I do not have the
proof to profess these things have happened.


I hope you are satisfied with my answers,


~Gatene

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How about just leaving people alone?

Agreed, when religious organisations stop the withholding of condoms to people with aids, when they stop telling inflicting child abuse on children by telling and showing with videos that they are going to burn in hell, when they stop telling people evolution is false, when they stop organizing into groups that want to stop gay people getting married etc etc etc... then I will leave them alone.

Why is it a religious organization's responsibility to give people with aids condoms? What happened to personal responsibility? There are aids organizations as well as local health departments that provide free condoms to people with aids as well as prevention education. Also there are these people called parents that can teach children to not have unprotected sex and can provide condoms or abstinence teaching to kids. I realize that there are people who have caused parenting to be nearly illegal but if they would step back and allow legal parenting then religious organizations wouldn't have the pull that they do.

You can't make stupidity illegal but you can fight it with education. Why don't the scientific foundations advertise more? We need advertising that balances the stupid being spewed by religious organizations. As much as I can't stand the indoctrination they produce, it is still more often that the religious organizations help the helpless than it is the scientific organizations. People will go where their most immediate needs are met. If someone needs food they will go where they can get food. I don't see the science foundations running food banks and teaching science to the hungry as they help them. Maybe they should try some of the admittedly shady tactics churches do.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Why is it a religious organization's responsibility to give people with aids condoms? What happened to personal responsibility?

It's not the religious organization's responsibility to give people with aids condoms, but they shouldn't stop it either. They're basically telling them, "No, no sex, look where it got you". That's control, and that's wrong. The church should want to stop the spreading of aids. I would think that if they are going to a religious group to get condoms, that is taking a measure of personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Why don't the scientific foundations advertise more? We need advertising that balances the stupid being spewed by religious organizations.

The church butts in a lot. For example, the movie, "The Golden Compass". A harmless fiction story. The church steps in and stops Hollywood from making any more of the movies all because the author was openly atheist. I would think they would shit a holy brick if some science group were to start advertising their beliefs, etc.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How about just leaving people alone?

Agreed, when religious organisations stop the withholding of condoms to people with aids, when they stop telling inflicting child abuse on children by telling and showing with videos that they are going to burn in hell, when they stop telling people evolution is false, when they stop organizing into groups that want to stop gay people getting married etc etc etc... then I will leave them alone.

Why is it a religious organization's responsibility to give people with aids condoms?

What? This isn't the case I think you misunderstood the comments. The Roman Catholic church and its priests are known to be telling African people that condoms 'increase the risk of aids'. They spread propaganda that supports their religious doctrine, they call using condoms a 'sin against life'. You can find many resources for this online, I am surprised you haven't heard of it.

What happened to personal responsibility? There are aids organizations as well as local health departments that provide free condoms to people with aids as well as prevention education. Also there are these people called parents that can teach children to not have unprotected sex and can provide condoms or abstinence teaching to kids. I realize that there are people who have caused parenting to be nearly illegal but if they would step back and allow legal parenting then religious organizations wouldn't have the pull that they do.

Roman Catholic churches in Africa have again been noted for teaching people that condoms are not to be used. The difficulty is not that they don't have access but that they are being fed disinformation about condoms and their use against HIV.

You can't make stupidity illegal but you can fight it with education.

This is my point entirely, but some places such as faith schools limit scientific knowledge and teach 'God' as the answer. Belief in God isn't a problem, the problem is when religion spreads religious propaganda and disinformation about as fact, often ignoring the facts. Richard Dawkins delves heavily into this in many of his documentations on the subject. One of the problems also with this is that a lot of faith schools in the UK demand your child be Roman Catholic and go to church, for some there are only Roman Catholic churches around and so have to for their children to get an education and not move far away. Now that is what is outrageous, forcing atheists to go to church and denying your child the education because you are not practicing Roman Catholics.

Why don't the scientific foundations advertise more? We need advertising that balances the stupid being spewed by religious organizations. As much as I can't stand the indoctrination they produce, it is still more often that the religious organizations help the helpless than it is the scientific organizations.

There's the rub, religious organizations claim they are helping the world and indeed they are, but you wouldn't expect say the American Psychological Association to be as adept at giving out aid as say the Salvation Army, or that it is their place to, which the latter has been created purposefully by religion to help others. Science doesn't have to be a charitable organization, just as members of the salvation army or other religious aid groups don't have to be religious.

People will go where their most immediate needs are met. If someone needs food they will go where they can get food. I don't see the science foundations running food banks and teaching science to the hungry as they help them.

Is it the business of the potato fan club to do the same? You expect science to reply with charity, it is not sciences place to suddenly become charitable, and there are actually many atheist charities. But again this all falls prey on saying 'well religious groups help people'. NO, PEOPLE HELP PEOPLE. Having religion has nothing to do with it, you either help people or you don't. Certain religious organizations may help in bringing people together indeed, but that's not an absolute. Plus when it comes to good deeds and helping others I don't like using labels such as religious or atheist because that's not what we are, we aren't labelled by our faith, we don't go around saying 'that person is right wing, that's a left wing person etc'. The Red Cross are a great aid to the world and they hold a stance of religious neutrality.

The OP is an interesting question, but it simply wouldn't work in society freedom of speech is acknowledged as a right or privilege. A potential comprise would be to add a disclaimer that indulging in religious rituals is "For Entertainment Purposes Only" as many astrologers, tarot card readers, and psychic are compelled to do. Laws were able to be passed with enforce such a disclaimer based on small percentage of society endorsing these rituals.

The likelihood of such a disclaimer on religious practice becoming a law would be extremely small at this time in the USA. A majority of the population hold a belief in a deity and gain some degree of satisfaction from religious practice. Proponents would not agree that their rituals are equivalent to that of rituals described above, therefore no legislation would be enacted.

One thought that struck me which may be of benefit to this discussion is that the concept of False Advertisement does not only exist but is actually distinctly illegal in many countries (or so Wikipedia informs me - it certainly is where I live).

While one certainly could make the argument that religion is not specifically a product and therefore is immune to this line of thought, it does raise the potentially interesting question as to whether it is unethical or not to advertise anything using data that can not be verified.

If it's not a product, the cost of bibles and tythes is difficult to account for... though possible to account for.

Originally Posted by Quantime

What? This isn't the case I think you misunderstood the comments. The Roman Catholic church and its priests are known to be telling African people that condoms 'increase the risk of aids'. They spread propaganda that supports their religious doctrine, they call using condoms a 'sin against life'. You can find many resources for this online, I am surprised you haven't heard of it.

Agreed, they should not be allowed to lie about what causes aids and how to prevent it. They should also be required to state that their religious claims are for entertainment purposes only just like the psychic friends network has to. But I do not think they should be disallowed to advertise at all.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Roman Catholic churches in Africa have again been noted for teaching people that condoms are not to be used. The difficulty is not that they don't have access but that they are being fed disinformation about condoms and their use against HIV.

You are talking about one religious group. There are plenty of religious groups that say no such thing. I don't deal with Catholics generally. I grew up with protestants and eventually converted to Islam before realizing reality was a much better doctrine to follow. But of all the religious groups I encountered, ONLY the Catholics were saying that condoms were bad. Any other group I encountered approached safe sex or abstinence in regards to aids prevention in a more practical manner. Usually they would preach abstinence outside of marriage. And I don't think anyone in their right mind can fault a group of people for holding sex to be a bit sacred and treat it with enough respect to not go tossing your parts around anytime it feels good. And most of the ones that preached abstinence would say "if you just can't say no at least use a condom".

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by seagypsy

You can't make stupidity illegal but you can fight it with education.

This is my point entirely, but some places such as faith schools limit scientific knowledge and teach 'God' as the answer. Belief in God isn't a problem, the problem is when religion spreads religious propaganda and disinformation about as fact, often ignoring the facts. Richard Dawkins delves heavily into this in many of his documentations on the subject. One of the problems also with this is that a lot of faith schools in the UK demand your child be Roman Catholic and go to church, for some there are only Roman Catholic churches around and so have to for their children to get an education and not move far away. Now that is what is outrageous, forcing atheists to go to church and denying your child the education because you are not practicing Roman Catholics.

I agree with you here. I want to point something that may be overlooked here, I am only debating one of the many points you have made. Most of what you have said I have no argument with. But I don't agree that religious groups should be held responsible for the well being of the sick and the poor. Why is that their responsibility? It shouldn't be their responsibility any more than it is the responsibility of Mensa or Cosplay people. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their own family members and stop expecting organizations to come to the rescue of every moron that screws their life up. Let them die for all I care. They screwed up let them pay the consequences. No one owes them anything. We are all handed on a silver platter an education for free in the usa. We have scientific knowledge at our fingertips and if we are too arrogant and stupid to accept that knowledge and properly apply it to our lives then we deserve what we get. If SOME people regardless of their source of motivation feel better about themselves when they feed the hungry, clothe the cold, or latex the sexually irresponsible then more power to them. I am grateful for their efforts. But I will never in a million years act as if I, or anyone else, am entitled to their charity. I think charity should be done away with and made illegal. Our population will drop and the stupid will be less likely to be able to breed. But that's just me. I know most human beings don't feel that way, and that's fine. I believe that charity only weakens our species and prevents people from growing up and taking responsibility for their own future. I realize i am contradicting something I said earlier. I have this issue. I have my socially acceptable me that says all the things that are right and favorable by society and then I have the real honest me that wishes half the population didn't exist. Sometimes I slip up and say what I really think. I willfully behave in a socially acceptable way because I know if I do not, my life privileges can and will be revoked. (I don't believe in rights)

Originally Posted by Quantime

There's the rub, religious organizations claim they are helping the world and indeed they are, but you wouldn't expect say the American Psychological Association to be as adept at giving out aid as say the Salvation Army, or that it is their place to, which the latter has been created purposefully by religion to help others. Science doesn't have to be a charitable organization, just as members of the salvation army or other religious aid groups don't have to be religious.

Your right. I wouldn't expect the APA to give out aid. I don't expect anyone to. I wish they would let nature take its course and let the genetically, intellectually, and physically inferior die off, or be killed off when they attempt to best someone superior to themselves. Chances are, I'd have died before ever having kids if this had been allowed but that's fair in nature isn't it?

Originally Posted by Quantime

Is it the business of the potato fan club to do the same? You expect science to reply with charity, it is not sciences place to suddenly become charitable, and there are actually many atheist charities. But again this all falls prey on saying 'well religious groups help people'. NO, PEOPLE HELP PEOPLE. Having religion has nothing to do with it, you either help people or you don't. Certain religious organizations may help in bringing people together indeed, but that's not an absolute. Plus when it comes to good deeds and helping others I don't like using labels such as religious or atheist because that's not what we are, we aren't labelled by our faith, we don't go around saying 'that person is right wing, that's a left wing person etc'. The Red Cross are a great aid to the world and they hold a stance of religious neutrality.

I don't expect science to reply with charity. But the reality is, while we all sit around whining about how annoying religious groups are we'd have major freak outs if they decided to stop doing charity and close their doors. Even we atheists depend on them to serve a purpose in society. They keep the lazy low-lifes that won't get off drugs or get a job from breaking into our houses at night just to fill their stomachs. They give the useless people something to do on Sunday keeping them out of the way of those of us willing to work on Sundays. Fear of eternal damnation is the only thing that keeps some people from slitting your throat just for looking at them funny. Be glad for the psychosis that controls way more people than we want to admit. Even crack heads serve a purpose in our society. I remember when I was really broke and my transmission got stuck in reverse. There was a local crack head mechanic that fixed my transmission for $10. Ten freaking dollars! did I take advantage of him? You bet I did. And he took that $10 and smoked it up as fast as he got it. But I was able to drive again and continue feeding my kid. If I had let some moral high ground stop me from getting him his fix, my kid would have gone hungry and the crack head would have gotten a fix some other way. This is reality. It's ugly. Life and death are both ugly. This is the reality that even too many atheists don't want to face. The thing is, humans delude themselves daily. They have to or they turn dark like me. I like being this way. I like seeing the world the way it is. Things hurt less. I don't take things as personal. And when something happy and sweet and pretty happens I appreciate it that much more because true beauty in life is rare and precious and should be protected and appreciated for all that it is worth.

I don't know about other countries, but USA has free education. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for stupid here. In the USA, stupid is a choice. I feel no sympathy for the stupid and quite frankly they deserve to be preyed upon by the scams of any color be they religious or otherwise. They deserve whatever hardship they bring upon themselves due to their choosing of stupidity.

A fool and their money, health, and/or life will and should soon be parted.


my apologies for any feelings I may have hurt here. This is my view of the world. Your mileage may vary.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Agreed, they should not be allowed to lie about what causes aids and how to prevent it. They should also be required to state that their religious claims are for entertainment purposes only just like the psychic friends network has to. But I do not think they should be disallowed to advertise at all.

That's funny. If I saw that message on the bottom of a religious ad, I would always give you a mental thumbs up lmao.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I don't expect science to reply with charity. But the reality is, while we all sit around whining about how annoying religious groups are we'd have major freak outs if they decided to stop doing charity and close their doors. Even we atheists depend on them to serve a purpose in society. They keep the lazy low-lifes that won't get off drugs or get a job from breaking into our houses at night just to fill their stomachs. They give the useless people something to do on Sunday keeping them out of the way of those of us willing to work on Sundays. Fear of eternal damnation is the only thing that keeps some people from slitting your throat just for looking at them funny. Be glad for the psychosis that controls way more people than we want to admit. Even crack heads serve a purpose in our society. I remember when I was really broke and my transmission got stuck in reverse. There was a local crack head mechanic that fixed my transmission for $10. Ten freaking dollars! did I take advantage of him? You bet I did. And he took that $10 and smoked it up as fast as he got it. But I was able to drive again and continue feeding my kid. If I had let some moral high ground stop me from getting him his fix, my kid would have gone hungry and the crack head would have gotten a fix some other way. This is reality. It's ugly. Life and death are both ugly. This is the reality that even too many atheists don't want to face. The thing is, humans delude themselves daily. They have to or they turn dark like me. I like being this way. I like seeing the world the way it is. Things hurt less. I don't take things as personal. And when something happy and sweet and pretty happens I appreciate it that much more because true beauty in life is rare and precious and should be protected and appreciated for all that it is worth.


I don't know about other countries, but USA has free education. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for stupid here. In the USA, stupid is a choice. I feel no sympathy for the stupid and quite frankly they deserve to be preyed upon by the scams of any color be they religious or otherwise. They deserve whatever hardship they bring upon themselves due to their choosing of stupidity.


A fool and their money, health, and/or life will and should soon be parted.




my apologies for any feelings I may have hurt here. This is my view of the world. Your mileage may vary.

I must say, at first, I was very offended by what you said, then I started to think, you are mostly right. Religion, makes you deny reality, thus it makes you stupid, and some more than others. I fell into the "more than others" category as a child and well into adulthood. It's not easy to erase stupid from your makeup, as matter of fact, it is damn hard. 27 years of the same shit. I was lazy, totally dependant on God and my parents. I still have some of that laziness now. It hurts to hear/read someone say it like that, but it's mostly true, and it's still hard to change.


It's a grand design of government and religion to make us stupid and lazy. When our forefathers built America, laziness wasn't involved. Everyone worked for what they got. Then, government started to give handouts, this slowly but surely made us lazy and ensured the laziness of the future generations. Today, we're still given handouts. If/when they stop, we just fight, kill, commit suicide, or just die unless we wake up and and get wise. By then, we're bitter as hell, and life holds no real meaning. The laws - many more are made everyday - repress us from doing what comes natural, and this repression makes some of us sad, depressed, violent and rebelious. If you sit down with a pen and paper, and map out America's history, you will notice what I say as truth (but highly abridged).


Religion is very similar:


*We put all of our faith in God - This is in itself keeps us from doing hard/critical thinking to take care of our problems ourselves. Of course, this is the design that we all put all of our faith in God, nowhere else, not everyone does that. God will lead the way, bring people into our lives, make things happen. So what do we do? We sit back and wait, and do no thinking for ourselves, most of us take no action (lazy), and use God as a crutch for being that way.


*Selflessness - This is a hard one to do, because when we give and give and give, we lose our own possessions. This in turn makes us sad, depressed, bitter, mean, etc. We need to have what makes us happy, and have a healthily low dose of selflessness. This is also what makes your despised charity come in. True, the heads of charity live lavish lifestyles - where does the money go? -, and some donors of charity are donating just for a type of tax evasion; but charity comes from selflessness, and has its ramifications (as you have pointed out).


*Sin - Granted, some of what the Bible calls sin is pure common sense; however, some sins - like sexuality, as you have pointed out - makes us suppress our natural urges, and this too makes us sad, depressed, and suicidal in some cases. If we keep suppressing our natural urges, we will become bitter and violent towards others.


*Everything that is not of God or does not glorify Him is a sin. Sure, most people don't follow this to a tee, but take a look at history, especially the witch burnings. Take a look at gay marriage. Hell, read anything that the church is actively pursuing to put a stop to via protests, riots, etc. Hating, judging, and killing people because they believe God doesn't like it. This is where God becomes their scapegoat. They turn violent with words and actions because God said it's a sin. Some aren't violent at all and they use Satan as their scapegoat and shun the people away (If all the violent ones read Leviticus word for word like they say they have, then all Christians would do the latter). Think of all the good these people miss out on in life. No, we shouldn't change the non violent, but helping to educate without imposing is a good selfless act (selfless because if you don't charge money (or get a material award) and don't force a change or force the truth when they won't listen is a kindness, not a requirement of your humanity).


*Heaven/Hell - this goes without saying. The value of their life and the life of those around them lowers, greatly. All they have to do is lead a good life for around 70+ years, and they become perfect and live in paradise; or scared out of their mind about Hell and torture themselves. The scare of Hell made me bitter and lash out on people from frustration (verbally) from the repression.


*The list goes on and on.




I have done a great deal studying of the Bible, and without some preacher giving me his/her interpretation, I was able to read it all unadulterated, and take the Bible literally, and come to these conclusions as an atheist.


Fell free to question or debate me on this, but I do have my proof to make it all fact.

Gatene, well spoke. Very insightful.