Honestly id din't give a fuck about girls, skype, or culture, but with only about 14% of religious make it my new favorite country of all. :D
24/02/2016, 21:11
Because Religion doesn't just teach values, it becomes a value onto itself, and that's the tipping point where people start using it to justify horribly unethical actions in the name of ethics.
I would much rather teach my children right from wrong by teaching them how to tell the difference, not by saying what's in this old book here is right, and what isn't is wrong... oh, and don't bother actually reading the book; just do whatever the man in the dress on the stage tells you to.
I want to teach my children to judge others by their words and actions towards other people, not by picking some arbitrary and irrelevant quality about them and using that as justification to forever consign them to "not-us" status.
A predominantly non-religious country is a country where I don't have to worry that what my kids are learning at school is not an education, but indoctrination into some teacher's death cult. It would be a school where the rules are based in facts and reality, not some fantasy of unrealistic religions wish-fulfillment.
And less you think I'm ducking at shadows, let's have a look at an example of the alternative:
In the last several decades, several US states successfully lobbied to have sex education struck from all public school curriculums. As a result, several years later, the instances of teenaged pregnancies doubled and tripled in every one of those states. In all other parts of the country, teenage pregnancies have been on a steady decline.
You asked: "Why would people having a religious belief be a concern to you at all?"
Because we have to live with them, and living in a country where religious extremists both run the country and dictate the laws is equally terrifying whether you're in the Middle East, or North America. Separation of Church and State was a vitally important principle for founding a successful and functional country. It's a shame we don't follow it anymore.
I would much rather teach my children right from wrong by teaching them how to tell the difference, not by saying what's in this old book here is right, and what isn't is wrong... oh, and don't bother actually reading the book; just do whatever the man in the dress on the stage tells you to.
I want to teach my children to judge others by their words and actions towards other people, not by picking some arbitrary and irrelevant quality about them and using that as justification to forever consign them to "not-us" status.
A predominantly non-religious country is a country where I don't have to worry that what my kids are learning at school is not an education, but indoctrination into some teacher's death cult. It would be a school where the rules are based in facts and reality, not some fantasy of unrealistic religions wish-fulfillment.
And less you think I'm ducking at shadows, let's have a look at an example of the alternative:
In the last several decades, several US states successfully lobbied to have sex education struck from all public school curriculums. As a result, several years later, the instances of teenaged pregnancies doubled and tripled in every one of those states. In all other parts of the country, teenage pregnancies have been on a steady decline.
You asked: "Why would people having a religious belief be a concern to you at all?"
Because we have to live with them, and living in a country where religious extremists both run the country and dictate the laws is equally terrifying whether you're in the Middle East, or North America. Separation of Church and State was a vitally important principle for founding a successful and functional country. It's a shame we don't follow it anymore.
you don't need religion to bee an stupid asshole that do everything somebody tell you. You can for example see the french revolution and the great terror, but I agree the state and religion must be separated, and also I believe everybody should have right to profess their own believes.
of course in my opinion the important thing its prevent any institution, organisation or cult have to much power over the people.
of course in my opinion the important thing its prevent any institution, organisation or cult have to much power over the people.
Your obvious bitterness and loathing for religion aside, I agree that sex ed should be taught but I have concerns on how it's done but that in and of itself is more of an issue of education as a whole rather than the finer details of it. However, in no way is keeping children ignorant of sex ed a religious teaching. If you read a bible this would be obvious to you. This is mistake made by man and the consequences of it pinned onto religion. So in no way does the bible tell anyone to not teach sex. In fact the bible celebrates sex between spouses.
I agree that there should be a separation of church and state but to demand that there be no one of religious belief in government office is just ridiculous. If you don't want a religious leader to be in office then just cast your vote. You don't however get to complain that those who have religious belief not be able to lead. That goes against our rights because in no way is an atheist man better or worse than a religious man. Besides, if he was elected into office, who do you think put him there? The majority of the people. In which case would religious individuals, making the other the minority. We do things for the best of the majority, not the minority. Despite whether they are religious or not.
Your ethics argument is very vague making it sound more like random statements rather than actual examples. So let me just explain to you how most Christian ethics work since it's clear you don't understand:
We as humans cannot establish a moral compass for ourselves. Case being that the popular moral compass in today's society is to "just do what you think is right" which in and of itself is the reason why there is so much evil in the world. Murderers for example, many of them believe that the homicides they commit are doing the right thing. But where did they get that idea? From themselves. And no one can judge them because they're doing what makes them feel good.
I agree that there should be a separation of church and state but to demand that there be no one of religious belief in government office is just ridiculous. If you don't want a religious leader to be in office then just cast your vote. You don't however get to complain that those who have religious belief not be able to lead. That goes against our rights because in no way is an atheist man better or worse than a religious man. Besides, if he was elected into office, who do you think put him there? The majority of the people. In which case would religious individuals, making the other the minority. We do things for the best of the majority, not the minority. Despite whether they are religious or not.
Your ethics argument is very vague making it sound more like random statements rather than actual examples. So let me just explain to you how most Christian ethics work since it's clear you don't understand:
We as humans cannot establish a moral compass for ourselves. Case being that the popular moral compass in today's society is to "just do what you think is right" which in and of itself is the reason why there is so much evil in the world. Murderers for example, many of them believe that the homicides they commit are doing the right thing. But where did they get that idea? From themselves. And no one can judge them because they're doing what makes them feel good.
"Bitterness and Loathing" is much too strong, and implies more active energy expended on having opinions then I'm willing to allot them. Let's go with "disillusioned and distrustful".
It was the religious right wingers who claimed their church-taught morality found the teaching of sex Ed in schools to be unethical. I never said they READ their Biblefaith fact I implied most of them don't. That doesn't seem to prevent them from claiming their religion justifies their most irrational beliefs.
Every politician seeking office in the USA panders heavily to the religious fundamentalists, because those are very sizable groups of virtually guaranteed voters. If they're willing to spend days outside waving "God Hates Fags" signs, for sure they'll show up for however many minutes it takes to cast their vote for the candidate who claims to be a devout member of their club, and will prove it by introducing bills and laws that pander to their fears and predijuces, no matter how poorly thought out, how self-destructive, no matter if contradicts something the Bible ACTUALLY says or not.
It's not the personal faith of the politician I'm concerned with; it's the agenda of the religious groups he or she is willing to advance irresponsibly to further his/her career. It makes no distinguishable difference which politician is selected; the same root problem persists.
Remember this conversation started with "Why would people having a religious belief be a concern to you at all?". A predominantly areligious country will not be run by politicians whose careers hinge in pandering to the poorly reasoned whims of religious nuts. It's no longer politically advantageous to present oneself as someone who prioritizes religious dogma above common sense. It is instead advantageous to convince the voting public that you are a clear-headed and rational person capable of making rational choices based on the specific circumstances, as opposed to a broad moral rule of thumb that may not be relevant in every (or any) cases.
I disagree completely with every statement in your final paragraph. That shouldn't be a surprise. If we both agreed thats how the world worked, we probably would have met in the same church last Sunday, wouldn't we?
It was the religious right wingers who claimed their church-taught morality found the teaching of sex Ed in schools to be unethical. I never said they READ their Biblefaith fact I implied most of them don't. That doesn't seem to prevent them from claiming their religion justifies their most irrational beliefs.
Every politician seeking office in the USA panders heavily to the religious fundamentalists, because those are very sizable groups of virtually guaranteed voters. If they're willing to spend days outside waving "God Hates Fags" signs, for sure they'll show up for however many minutes it takes to cast their vote for the candidate who claims to be a devout member of their club, and will prove it by introducing bills and laws that pander to their fears and predijuces, no matter how poorly thought out, how self-destructive, no matter if contradicts something the Bible ACTUALLY says or not.
It's not the personal faith of the politician I'm concerned with; it's the agenda of the religious groups he or she is willing to advance irresponsibly to further his/her career. It makes no distinguishable difference which politician is selected; the same root problem persists.
Remember this conversation started with "Why would people having a religious belief be a concern to you at all?". A predominantly areligious country will not be run by politicians whose careers hinge in pandering to the poorly reasoned whims of religious nuts. It's no longer politically advantageous to present oneself as someone who prioritizes religious dogma above common sense. It is instead advantageous to convince the voting public that you are a clear-headed and rational person capable of making rational choices based on the specific circumstances, as opposed to a broad moral rule of thumb that may not be relevant in every (or any) cases.
I disagree completely with every statement in your final paragraph. That shouldn't be a surprise. If we both agreed thats how the world worked, we probably would have met in the same church last Sunday, wouldn't we?
I must admit I did miss most of the point for wanting to move to Estonia - If you don't like religion, move to a country with a low minority of religion. Or try your best to change everyone's minds. Your point is made whether I agree with it or not.
I must say though, despite us being in obvious disagreement you have given me a level of respect to my argument that no atheist has before and I am very grateful.
I must say though, despite us being in obvious disagreement you have given me a level of respect to my argument that no atheist has before and I am very grateful.
I guess I complain all the time about how annoying are those not atheists, makes him feel more smart. XD
Hello there crimson brother!
Please log in to leave a comment
