Man's Successor

We are doomed... as times moves on, we develop more and more powerful weapons. It's just a matter of time till some radical lowlife group gets hold of such weapons and wipes us all out(all in the name of god or some similar horseshit). Hence, an immediate ban on religions is a must. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Whether you like it or not, the tolerance experiment has failed. And so did the experiement for the integration of people of different religions into one society. Both have failed miserably in the EU and the US. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the growing islamic threat, the civilisations clash is inevitable. If we want a successor, a total ban on religions is a must before they get hold of nuclear weapons and wack us in the name of god. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Whether you like it or not, the tolerance experiment has failed. And so did the experiement for the integration of people of different religions into one society. Both have failed miserably in the EU and the US.

---

quote:

---

No they haven't. Not from where I'm sitting. (Leicester, UK.)

---

Oh really? Did atheists blow up busses in London? Was it again atheists that drove burning cars into Heathrow airport? Or are you just saying that in your city this has not happen, so it doesn't concern you?

quote:

---

If we continue to turn a blind eye to the growing radical islamic threat, the civilisations clash is inevitable. If we want a successor, a total ban on religions is a must before they get hold of nuclear weapons and wack us in the name of god.

---

quote:

---

I still think that you haven't thought this through.

​

First, the people who wish to ban religion are a minority. They are a minority even among the irreligious. How are "we" meant to ban religion? Some sort of un-Holy War? But "we" are outnumbered. And I, for one, despite my lack of belief, would fight on the other side.

​

Secondly, any such attempt would precipitate exactly the sort of crisis you wish to avoid.

​

Finally, your proposition is grossly immoral, for exactly the same reason that the worst excesses of religion are immoral: because you wish to introduce compulsion into matters of conscience. What, pray tell me, are "we" meant to do with the believers who do not respect "our" ban on religion? Burn them at the stake? Stone them to death? Do explain.

---

So you wish to fight radicalism with peaceful means and keeping good ethics and morality? Like how? Beg them to stop spreading their religious bullshit and brainwashing their offspring?
Full democracy is a myth, and so is absolute freedom.
---

quote:

---

N.B: I notice that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.

---

It's still on topic - we are discussing why there could be no successor to man after the clash of civilisations.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Fascism is banned all over the world.Is it bad that they banned it? No.Is it immoral? No.Was there any other way? No.So why should we put up with fascist and extremist religious BS, trying to break up our societies? Why? Because we live in democracies?? That'd be pathetic if you look at it this way.Radical religions should be banned the world over for the sake of our future/our successor, as the OP states/. It's a growing problem and the last thing we shoud do is pretend we don't see it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Avoided? I am proposing that we let the religious right have their way. I say we divide this country into two and let the jesus freaks do what they want on their side of the border. I'd really love to see what kinds of technological and social advancements they'd have 10, 20, 30, 50 years after seperation. It ought to be interesting.

​

Well as an interesting social experiment I have to say I would be tempted
The idea of letting all the fundamentalists implode in their own nation state asylum is also not without some appeal to me

​

However in practise I don't think dividing people up on religious grounds will do anything other than create multiple warring factions each thinking they have God on their side and the divine right to the land and wealth of the various inferior and thus inhuman dibelievers in the one true God.

​

So was Buddha's teachings.

​

Take your pick as far as I am concerned. Peace and tolerance ahead of divisiveness and war is all I am advocating. Buddha, yoga or Dungeons and Dragons is all fine by me if it has the desired effect.

---

This social experiment has already been carried out successfully - in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran the society consists of 99.99999% religeous freaks and the law is called Sharia, i.e. religion is above the law and always has the upper hand.

Banning radical religions and teachings is possible and relatively easy to implement. Try preaching fascism anywhere in EU or USA and see what happens/hint - there will be no tolerance whatsoever/.

quote:

---

That is a gross simplification of the situation in these countries which arguably has it's roots in a brutal colonial past. If people are suppressed they will eventually fight and religion is the sort of ideological totem around which people seem inclined to unite.

---

It's not about their past or that they are suppressed. It's about them being totally brainwashed by the state.
If you lived in Iran, now at this time you'd probably be kneeing before god. And for that, I wouldn't blame their colonial past. We have been a colony for 500 years to Turkey and people have been suppressed and oppressed. Did we turn to god? No/most of us anyway/. Did we turn radical? No. Are there religeous fundamentalists here? No

quote:

---

Fascism is banned all over the world.

​

Fascism has not been banned all over the world. It simply carries a social stygma thanks to the Nazis and other fascist societies. In the US, people don't even know what fascism means any more for the most part, as demonstrated when some right-winders use the term "Islamo-fascists." The term "fascist" is used to denote any oppressive regime, rather than a unification of state and corporate interests. As further demonstrated in the US, we have a far greater aversion to the word "fascist" than to the policies of fascist governments.

​

So why should we put up with fascist and extremist religious BS, trying to break up our societies? Why? Because we live in democracies?? That'd be pathetic if you look at it this way.
Radical religions should be banned the world over for the sake of our future/our successor, as the OP states/. It's a growing problem and the last thing we shoud do is pretend we don't see it.

​

The problem with banning religions of any sort has been demonstrated ample times throughout history. Realistically, there is no difference between forcing atheism and forcing Christianity. You're claiming a moral high ground based on atheism's strict basis on objective evidence, but when it comes down to it, forcing a system of beliefs on a society throuh legal means is basically the same regardless of the motive or set of beliefs being forced.

​

It's not a back and white problem - don't fall into the same trap the fundamentalists set for themselves. Religion may be inherently detached from reality, but it is not inherently evil. That a better world may result from a lack of religion does not mean that a better world may result by making religion illegal.

​

Look at the abuses of previous governments who tried to enforce religious rules, whether it be making all religious practice illegal, or simply forcing a single religion above others. Could you really justify putting someone in jail only for believing in Jesus, or in Emperor Xenu? That smacks of the Orwellian thought police. Or the Inquisition. Or Communist Russia.

​

"Harmful" religions could be considered those which foment or promote violence. Most societies already have laws against inciting violence, or harassment, or any number of other "cult" - style behaviors. Let those laws simply apply to all religions equally, just as they should apply in non-religious circumstances. The problem is solved without additional legislation that, by its very nature, is bigoted. If a Muslim radical preaches that his followers should martyr themselves, arrest him for promoting violence - not for being a Muslim. If a Christian harasses people outside of an abortion clinic, arrest him for harassment, not for being a Christian. We cannot, no matter how bad they are, equate the extremists with the rational members of a given religion.

​

The only way to reach the "better world" envisioned by atheists of a world without religion is through education, and the eventual winning of the argument. Forcing the issue will only ever repeat exactly the same sins we blast religion for.

---

So since brainwashing is legal all over the world(US incl.), that means you leave the door open to radical religeous group to take over the vulnerable and young and exploit them to the fullest/no breaking of any law here/. Everything is completely legal. Have a look at Turkey - a complete religious brainwash in a secular country and now the people have already denounced secularity(secular since 1921). All done peacefully and without breaking a law. Now if the religeous leader goes out and shouts to the masses "America is evil, God told me last night - "hate America", then all the followers will hate America". They could even go further than just hate you, and that's the danger of leaving so much freedom to religions.I think you are grossly exaggerating the abilities of your legal systems to neutralise all kind of threats. You think your legal and justice systems are prepared for that. Well, I don't. It's a battle that we are doomed to lose, as our means to fight back are limited to what's been given to us by the law. And the law is all but perfect.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So since brainwashing is legal all over the world(US incl.), that means you leave the door open to radical religeous group to take over the vulnerable and young and exploit them to the fullest/no breaking of any law here/. Everything is completely legal. Have a look at Turkey - a complete religious brainwash in a secular country and now the people have already denounced secularity(secular since 1921). All done peacefully and without breaking a law. Now if the religeous leader goes out and shouts to the masses "America is evil, God told me last night - "hate America", then all the followers will hate America". They could even go further than just hate you, and that's the danger of leaving so much freedom to religions.

​

Leaving yourself open to certain forms of attacks or insidious movements is the price of freedom.

​

Besides, religious persecution does not stamp out the belief system. Christianity was attacked vigorously in its early days - all that does is make martyrs for the cause. Again, the only way, both ethically and realistically, to eliminate religion, is through education and winning the argument.

​

I think you are grossly exaggerating the abilities of your legal systems to neutralise all kind of threats. You think your legal and justice systems are prepared for that. Well, I don't. It's a battle that we are doomed to lose, as our means to fight back are limited to what's been given to us by the law. And the law is all but perfect.

​

The legal system is certainly flawed, true. A lot of that has to do with current society, which makes allowances for religion that it does not make for anything else. Tax exempt status, anyone?

​

But let's be honest here - if you get to claim a world where we can make religion illegal, certainly I can posit a few relatively minor changes to the legal system.

​

With equal treatment for religions, individuals can be prosecuted and their power taken away when violence is incited or inflicted. Individuals can be jailed for harassment. Individuals, Agobot, not belief systems.

---

I agree with most of what you say.

quote:

---

Making Christianity or any other religion illegal would result in exactly the same abuses and atrocities that lead you to hate religion so much. The only way your ideal actually gets reached is through education and winning the argument.

---

Most of the fundamentalists are followers of radical islam and I see you are afraid to say the word "islam". That's what is going in much of the world today. People are afraid to voice their opinion that most radical religious movements are islamic. Why are you afraid? Do you fear that you would angry the muslims? If yes, where is the freedom you so vehementally stand up for? Why do you keep blaming the christians for radicalism when I have never spoken of christians? There are cetain sects outside radical islam - like the Scientology, etc. which should be banned altoghether with radical islam, or radical whatsoever religion.

My contention is that people are pretty much irrational beings. The law that you have is not enough to stop or prevent the religious propaganda enticing violence and hatred. People are irrational and need as much or more guidance and attention by the state than they can get from sects and violent fundamentalism. I see nothing done about it, nothing that could deter people from falling for the cheap tricks offered by radicalism. Where is the state to explain with facts that what religious sects feed the public is complete BS? Only Germany had the courage to outlaw Scientology, but that's a far cry from what needs to be done in this area. If we cannot afford to ban some harmful segments of religions, we can always engage the information media to blast the public with correct information about our world and to warn them about the dangers radical religions pose. Unfortunately, I do not see anything like that happening in any part of the world today. No one and nobody is trying to even pretend that they are protecting our societies from harmful sects and harmful religious influences. There will be gov't institutions that will do their utmost, in a multitude of ways, to convince you that cigarettes are dangerous, drugs are lethal, alcohol is bad, speeding is wrong, and yet none of them will educate our children about the dangers of radical religions or help prevent fundamentalism from settling in the minds of the most vulnerable.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.