Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 12181920212223 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 230

Thread: Your Unpopular Opinions

  1. #211
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,301
    Modern Christianity is extremely diluted, yes. To the point where it's indistinguishable from any other ideology that preaches:

    a) Altruism. (delusional zealotry, madness, and suicide of reason)
    b) The existence of a Supreme Being. (schizophrenia)

    Everything else is mere pomp and ritual, play-acting, and gang formation. What a Catholic and a Baptist believe are indistinguishable in all important aspects - yet Baptists and Catholics have been known to fight over those unimportant and pathetic points of contention between the two schisms of their cult. This violence over insignificant scriptural details is why religion is so dangerous. It breeds herd mentality and gang culture.

    EDIT: And... this. is. not. a. question. of. personal expression.

    The state is secular, therefore it should neither endorse nor dismiss any religion. That is written in your constitution, the thing you Americans seem so enamoured of. Apparently you only call on it when it benefits you to do so. Having any religious icon in a public building would entail endorsing a religion. Is that so hard for you to understand, or do I need to tattoo it on your forehead with a rusty needle?
    Last edited by Delphinus; 05-23-2011 at 03:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  2. #212
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    The state is secular, therefore it should neither endorse nor dismiss any religion...
    Rio has already said this like four times, but uhhh, you know, representing a religion doesn't mean endorsing it, merely acknowledging it as an established part of society. Lol. Why do you jump to the conclusion that representation = endorsement?

  3. #213
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,301
    Because the displaying of religious matter is a territorial marking. It says: we are here. Given how antithetical religions are to one another, placing a crucifix in a library is practically equivalent to posting a sign saying "MUZZIES OUT" in glowing neon letters.

    And quite besides that, it shows bias to display one icon over another. Why, for example, choose a crucifix and not a Star of David? Like Kodos said there are over 3,000 different religions in the US - and it's better to not-exactly-satisfy all of them than to satisfy some and attract the ire of others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  4. #214
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by Delphinus View Post
    Because the displaying of religious matter is a territorial marking. It says: we are here. Given how antithetical religions are to one another, placing a crucifix in a library is practically equivalent to posting a sign saying "MUZZIES OUT" in glowing neon letters.
    Quote Originally Posted by rio View Post
    You know, somethings wrong with anyone who feels threatened just by looking at a religious symbol whether it's inane like Santa, the star of david, or more specific things like the 10 Commandments and to take even further to the point that they feel oppressed by it, that they're being hounded to follow that religion...
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    our fear of showing our beliefs shows how much of social hedgehogs people really are. They are not ready to accept or tolerate anything, but instead choose to be combative or make the assumption that everyone is equally combative, therefore become ideological hermits to "protect" themselves from a nonexistent enemy.
    That's a problem with us, psychologically, not a problem with religion or representation. In fact, that is the problem I hope we someday overcome through a long process of exposure and reeducation.

  5. #215
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,301
    That won't happen unless religion ceases to exist. Which makes the issue redundant. Religion is nothing but the remnants of ancient tribal mentality; all that can ever arise from it, in the end, is sickening violence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  6. #216
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Being combative and self-defensive about religion will only perpetuate religious intolerance. Abolishing religion is to run away from the goal of achieving tolerance. We shouldn't run away from our goals.

  7. #217
    Fenn
    Guest
    I have no problem with banning religious icons from public buildings. What I DO have a problem with is banning religious DISCUSSION and vocabulary from public buildings.

    In some public schools, you are not allowed to even mention God. How is this preparing kids for the real world, where they will face religion every day? The same goes for the government. I'm not saying religion can be used as an official argument in Congress, but let them say it anyway; they will be either praised or ridiculed, most likely the latter.

  8. #218
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,301
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    That's a problem with us, psychologically...
    Wait, actually, I just noticed this. The argument that we're psychologically 'problematic' is ridiculous. Belief in the value of tolerance is equally a function of the mind as our tendency to form tribes - and it makes most sense to build our systems around everything that comprises human nature rather than forcing ourselves into focusing on little parts that we're socialised to believe are best. In addition, by what values exactly do you judge the human mind 'problematic'? Do you have any that originate from outside the mind of a human - that are objective? I don't think you can call the human mind 'good' or 'bad' or 'problematic' any more than you can call a sea snail a 'failed experiment'. The mind is, that's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Illuminatus! Trilogy
    The most thoroughly and relentlessly Damned, banned, excluded, condemned, forbidden, ostracized, ignored, suppressed, repressed, robbed, brutalized and defamed of all Damned Things is the individual human being. The social engineers, statisticians, psychologists, sociologists, market researchers, landlords, bureaucrats, captains of industry, bankers, governors, commissars, kings and presidents are perpetually forcing this Damned Thing into carefully prepared blueprints and perpetually irritated that the Damned Thing will not fit into the slot assigned it. The theologians call it a sinner and try to reform it. The governor calls it a criminal and tries to punish it. The psychologist calls it a neurotic and tries to cure it. Still, the Damned Thing will not fit into their slots.
    Last edited by Delphinus; 05-24-2011 at 09:54 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  9. #219
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    The argument that we're psychologically 'problematic' is ridiculous.
    This statement basically makes every debate and every debate thread obsolete because the only reason we debate is because we believe other peoples' thinking is problematic. Some peoples' minds cannot facilitate tolerance, therefore their minds are problematic. The mental block of prejudice and intolerance is stopping it from doing so. And this is, undeniably, the source of all religious strife.

    Furthermore, by that logic, how is religion as "evil" as you claim it to be? Religion, objectively, is neither good or bad. The problems you so vehemently attribute to religion are actually problems of the //people// that adhere to it. Instead of exercising their ability to be tolerant, they choose to be intolerant. Though it's within the capacity of their minds to accept one another, they choose not to.

    So the issues of religion spawn from problematic people, not religion itself. Tearing down the establishment of religion is pointless because it's fixing something that is essentially not broken and ignoring the true issue.

  10. #220
    Sir-Mass-a-Lot Sylux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    THE LEGEND NEVER DIES
    Posts
    7,436
    I really agree with Delphinus here. We're not problematic, we're just trying to justify and satiate our feelings for balance. Their religion is no better than mine, so in a place territorialized by the Govie'ment there should be no religion symbolified at all. None whatsoever.

    Religion is evil, because it preaches supreme law. Law is evil, because it exerts control. Control is evil to all but the controller, and as humans in the name of freedom, we should seek to abolish all law, all control, and all religion. If you submit to control, you are weak. Willful ignorance is evil. You, of course, see exactly where I'm going with this.
    Last edited by Sylux; 05-25-2011 at 07:30 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •