Man's Successor

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.

As a proportion of the religious population in the UK, these people seem insufficient to start a civil war over. The sort of radicalism that involves blowing people up? I see no reason to fight them through peaceful means. However, you were speaking of "banning religion", and since there is no peaceful and ethical way of doing that, my vote is that we don't do it at all.There is already a ban on blowing people up. A clash of civilazations that you seem peculiarly keen to bring about.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

HmmmmThe sort of thinking you are proposing has been suggested before in a different context. Wasn't it Enoch Powell who claimed that racial integration was impossible and should therefore not even be attempted? Is your proposal so different?Communist USSR tried to ban religion and that failed.What do you suggest we do? Setup individual nation states for different religions and then let everyone fight over the land? Oh that one has been tried as well. Again not very successfully.I am no fan of religion but banning religion or formally segregating people on religious grounds has some pretty poor form historically. The general lesson would eem to be that these sorts of measures cause terrible trouble down the line and should be avoided at all costs.I am not a Christian but the teachings of Christ on tolerance and forgiveness seem pretty ahead of their time in this context.

So was Buddha's teachings. This is what I would suggest. We setup an honest to god real world Jesusland where christian fundamentalists can do whatever the hell they want. They can ban interracial marriage all they want. They can teach creation science all they want. Hell, they can burn witches all they want.The religious right for years now have claimed that if they'd have their way society would be in a moral golden age. I'd like to see just how golden their society would be without us atheists holding them back on their intolerance, bigotry, and persecution of each other. Your examples are bad in that these regimes that tried to ban religion in the past were religious in themselves. Stalin's USSR was not a communist state. It resembled more of a theocracy than communism with Stalin himself acting as a demi-god. In fact, just about every oppressive society in history modeled itself after theocratic ideals of don't question just obey and have lots and lots and lots and lots of faith because Bush works in mysterious ways. 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.Edited by True Believer, : No reason given.

What does your intolerance, bigotry, and persecution of Christians have to do with man's successor?Or are you just preaching?

How will we know that we've speciated?If we find out, in the far future, that we are no longer able to reproduce with the homo sapiens that were around in 10,000 BC, would we stop calling ourselves homo sapiens?

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. 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.

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.

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.I don't see how banning religion will do anything more than give credence to the arguments of dangerous fanatics preaching violonce as a reaction to perceived persecution.If for arguments sake we accept the banning of religion how would you do it such that it does not have the opposite effect to the one you desire?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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

There are pockets of neofascism in both Europe and America. But I accept the point that it's widespread promotion is pretty well contained. However these people do have the legal right to express their views and I think the restriction on them is more social than legal.The difficulty is in defining what is extreme and what is not.
There are laws in place against murder, violence and oppression.
Do these laws need to be tailored to target religion specifically when any 'extreme' activities are already covered by law to all practical intents and purposes anyway?I fundamentally disagree with the teachings of fascism but I would fight for the right for others to hold and express those views as long as they do not stray from the law with respect to violence.Persuasion not restriction is the only real way to fight the worst excesses of ideological extremes.

To some extent yes. But how did that state get into power and how did it come to hold such sway over the people through religion? These are complex questions with the answers rooted in history.

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. 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.