Another question, if I may...

by AGuest 97 Replies latest jw friends

  • shechaiyah

    Gladiator, there's no point in taking comments personally.

    I LEFT the other Forum because the nasti-ness just got too thick;

    but people here are quite decent and reasonable, so I'll stick around.

    :) She--

  • AGuest

    Let me try to spell it out more clearly.

    Thank you, dear Bohm. Please do and, again, peace to you!

    You wrote: Shouldn't the call be for EVERYTHING that causes harm... that we don't literally NEED to live... GO... and not just one thing?


    I answered: no, because that would be a harm in itself.


    What i meant is that outlawing things left and right that cause harm will create a very bad society.

    I agree...

    For instance, beer cause harm, but i dont want beer outlawed.

    Okay. You say that religion causes harm... but there are those who don't want IT outlawed, so...

    Its a naive and silly statement because everything cause harm in the wrong quantities.

    Sorry, but I disagree: it was not naive OR silly. It was rhetorical... and that you didn't GET that, but took it totally literal is, IMHO, naive and silly. Of COURSE, everything that causes harm can't go... because some of those things also cause good, which good outweighs the harms. My POINT, however, is that if ALL religion should go... even that which does NOT cause harm... shouldn't ALL that causes harm go? If you believe that ALL religion causes harm, that is. However, not everyone believes or agrees with that. If you DO believe that, though, and that it therefore must go... why shouldn't ALL that causes harm go? Tell me, please, what benefit is there in, say, cigarettes? In porn? I am sure someone can find some. I cannot (well, in cigarettes, but I get how some might "need" porn - the flesh, and all...). But I should be able to say ALL tobacco products and ALL porn... should go. Regardless of what others want. But everyone doesn't want that. Are they STUPID? Or is their view just different from mine?

    Then i wrote: some forms of religion arguably cause more harm than smoking... nobody argue that we cannot speak out against smoking.

    Yeah, I think those who SMOKE would look silly doing so, though. Which includes some here... who DO believe religion (or some religions) should go. Well, I think Pall Malls, Newports, Marlboroughs and ALL cigars should go. J/K.

    Let me make that even more clear: (some) atheists speak out against some forms of religion which cause a great deal of harm.

    And some speak out against them all... yes?

    If you find that is illegitimate (and if you do not i really dont see the point of this topic, but perhaps i am assuming to much),

    I don't think speaking out about some forms of religion is illegitimate. I don't necessarily think speaking out about ALL of them is. I just don't see why, if there is NO God... it's an issue at all... besides the harm they do (if they do harm). And if that is the issue, the harm... then why just religion? Why not ALL industries that cause "some" harm... and particularly those that cause GREAT harm?

    speaking out against something which cause relatively less harm, like smoking, should be similary problematic.

    It should be. But apparently it isn't.

    but nobody would claim it is wrong simply to say smoking is stupid, or discourage people from smoking.

    Yes, but there's a bit of a difference, isn't there... in saying "smoking is stupid"... than saying "YOU are stupid... for smoking." Yes? Yet, I see that here all the time. There are people here who hate religion... but smoke. And people who have no problem with religion... yet do not smoke. I hear "You're stupid for having a religion"... but never "You're stupid for smoking." See what I MEAN? You can tolerate smoking, yes... because you either think it harms no one but the smoker (which is entirely false)... or you don't care because it doesn't effect your individual life (which is also false, because your taxes are affected in some way or another)... or you have some regard for the individual smoker. On the other hand, you cannot tolerate someone who has a religion... or maybe not even a religion but just merely faith... because you think it harms others (and perhaps you - and if NOT you, then I really don't see the point!)... or it has effected your individual life... OR... you have a DISREGARD for the individual believer. Even if you don't actually KNOW them. None of this, however, answers the question, which is... what does it MATTER, if there is NO God/god? Why AREN'T they just another "service" provided to people who WANT it? If that service results in some harm to such people... so WHAT? So does tobacco. If it results in some harm to their children... so WHAT? So does tobacco. And so can drugs. And alcohol. And horror movies. And toddler beauty pageants. And... and... and... Why are YOU, dear Bohm... so unwilling to allow THIS industry... while tolerating some others... IF THERE IS NO GOD? Why are you UNABLE to look at it as just another enterprise... giving people what they WANT... hope or perhaps the illusion of hope... if those people are willing to PAY for it? They have the same opportunity as you to look into it and find out if they're being scammed or not, yes? I mean, if a con scams you once... okay... shame on you. But if you keep going back and being scammed... at what point are YOU responsible for your... ummmmm... "investments"? I get it that these people are being misled. As are some who invest in/follow other industries (hedge funding, perhaps, or various "potions" advertised to do this or that... which absolutely do not perform what they promise). But if they WANT to "believe"... and there is no God/god... why not LET them have their desire? I am not asking what harm those who are "selling" doing. We KNOW they cause harm. Just like we KNOW tobacco causes harm. But, so long as it's LEGAL... so long as folks WANT it... and so long as there IS no God... why deny them? My question is WHY deny them... in light of these other things? Just because it personally offends YOU? And while I appreciate your responses, I really don't think you've answered what I'm asking. Again, though, peace to you! A slave of Christ, SA

  • AGuest
    people here are quite decent and reasonable

    We can be, dear Shec (again, peace to you!)... as well as passionate about some things.

    so I'll stick around.

    Please do! Sorry Miz Sylvia (who is one of ones who usually does it) isn't here to formally welcome you, but the rest of us aren't so bad. Although we (I, for sure) may forget our manners, from time to time.

    So, welcome... and, again, peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,


  • Qcmbr

    AGuest - I'd like to see active religion removed from the classroom so - no prayers, no singing hymns, no nativity, no divali, no religious iconography, no religious schools etc. I would like to see religion studied in History, social science and English classes (where the role of religion within literature should be discussed.)

    I would like to have a strong, educational flavour that encouraged examining ones own ideas and beliefs critically emphasising that its Ok to be wrong, the way to think rationally and logically, tools to help you constructively disagree with your peers and guardians and critique what you are being taught. In short I'd like to add critical thinking and sceptiscism to the curriculum from the very first year of schooling.

    Education is the greatest tool we have for generating peace, personal achievement, social cooperation and unfettered thought. Though grateful for the efforts of my mother in raising me I am gutted that she taught me to worship a man made magic image and even now prays that I will return to that level of subjugation.

  • Twitch

    What Qcmbr said

  • AGuest

    Yes, I understand now, dear Q (again, peace to you!). That wouldn't include parochial schools, though, would it? Which means folks who CHOOSE that... for themselves or their children... would still get some indoctrination? And you do realize that MANY non-religious people send their children to parochial school... private religious colleges... etc.? And, again, if most taxpayers are religious... shouldn't they have the say? NOT that I condone religion - I just don't condone discriminatory thinking. On the usual bases...

    But some of the best educations are the ones people PAY for, yes? And if people are willing to PAY for religious indoctrination... for themselves AND their children...

    See where I'm going with this?

    Though grateful for the efforts of my mother in raising me I am gutted that she taught me to worship a man made magic image and even now prays that I will return to that level of subjugation.

    But dear one, no one MADE your mother do this: she CHOSE to. And it was her RIGHT - you were HER child and so she has a fundamental RIGHT to raise you as she saw fit, which may have included a cult environment. Contrastly, you have the right to raise YOUR children without such influence. AND... look where you are IN SPITE of what your mother taught you. Why do we assume that folks who follow religion really don't WANT to? After a certain age, dear one, people do... what they WANT to do. And DON'T do what they DON'T want to do. It no longer worked for you... and so you rejected it.

    Can you truly make that decision for others, though, besides your own kids (and only while they're kids)? If so, how are you different from those your mother follows, who say THEY are right and so folks should believe what THEY believe? If you DENY your children the right to choose religion... how are you different from your mom?

    It seems to me that what SHOULD happen IS happening: your parents choose for you, as children... then YOU choose, as an adult. And if your choice is religion - so be it; it's your CHOICE. And if it isn't... so be that, as well. Again, YOUR choice. But the ONLY choice anyone should be concerned about... is their OWN.

    Otherwise, what TRULY is the difference?

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • bohm

    Shelby darling, congratulations, you managed to misunderstand my post again. For that i think you have deserved the last word. have a nice friday!

  • shechaiyah


    The problem with the secular materialist dogma in schools is that it isolates children from other dimensions.

    It makes children feel foolish about praying; about daydreaming; about ideals and "hearing non-conformity."

    The material world is OBSESSED with conformity-to-rules, conformity-to-doctrines, processes, policies, procedures, etc etc etc.

    In the physical DOMAIN, the "process" becomes more holy, sacred and real than the outcome, the experience itself.

    The physical dimension, alone, becomes all-encompassing JAIL; and that's the why behind suicide rates.

    There has to be a way to GET OUT OF THESE GAME THEORIES that the secularists and technologiests create for us.


  • Twitch

    As I said, what Qcmbr said.



    You have a PM..


Share this