Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by HadesRagnazrath, Apr 27, 2015.
Drunk drivers kill people so I'll openly ridicule cars.
You are missing the point. Religious people kill people because of religion (or other causes, but we are talking about killing from religious motives), but drunk drivers kill people because of drunk driving. Cars are not the motive. Religion is the motive of religious killing. My post is kind of confusing, and can easily be interpreted incorrectly, but my point is that religious people kill people for religious purposes due to religion.
An atheist is thinking of converting back to Satanism? Isnt this oxymoronic?... anyway I know that there have been many atrocities committed in the name of religion but I don't think it's fair to blame all religion just because people misuse it. Pretty sure I've never heard of a Buddhist killing someone...or a rastafarian....
They aren't using the religion. The religion is using them. Also, I am no longer an atheist. I'm not going to say, as this is not a religious forum, and I'm not interested in sparking controversy and setting up barriers between myself and others here. I am not religious, but I do belive in a force. (Not god)
You have contradicted yourself because Satanism is indeed a religion but yet you said all religion is bad
Satanism is not a religion.
- it is a set of principles upon which you live your life. There is even satanic bible with a list of commandments. That would be a religion
I never even mentioned The Satanic Bible. The Satanic Bible is not an all encompassing book like the Christian bible is, anyways. I never even said I was a Satanist. I said I was, but I never said anything about now.
I never said anything about me living my life upon external principles.
If I were to convert to spongebobism and live according to the principles of Spongebob then that would be a religion
That would be called a philosophy.
That's philosophical Satanism. There is such a thing as theistic Satanism you know.
Not strictly, but it is the biggest factor.
Buddhism is not a religion that has ever been used to either promote or incite hatred or bigotry. Big difference.
But how do you settle the difference between pro-abortion women and anti-abortion women? Favour one over the other?
Sure about that?
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
If you can provide evidence to the contrary I will reevaluate my stance, but I always was under the impression buddhism was a religion built upon a framework of peace and acceptance.
The difference is that pro-abortion women are not preaching a belief that usurps the basic human rights of another human being (no, fetuses are not "human beings", nipping that in the bud right now), so you're damn right that I believe they should be "favored".
Not at all, quite the opposite. I believe women should have the choice to get an abortion, always. And for the women who are anti-abortion, the answer is simply "then don't get one". It's that simple.
But inciting hatred and attempting to legislate based on a hatred of abortion is utter stone-age barbarity, and is something we as a people should not tolerate. Imo the moment one's beliefs even attempt to usurp the fundamental human rights of another is the moment those beliefs lose both their validity and right to be taken seriously.
People's lives and rights over their own bodies > hurt feelings. Always. A thousand times over.
Well, being built upon a certain kind of framework is different than real world instances of religiously inspired violence.
I'm not going to go into the "fetuses are not human beings" rabbit hole but I don't think it's that simple. Also there are abortion advocates that want to able to abort beyond the point where a fetus can't survive separate from the womb.
But essentially you're arguing against women's rights based on where you stand ideologically. I see no difference between people like you and the other side.
Well then my original stance remains unchanged, despite my stance on Buddhism itself changing. Any religion that has been the root or cause of violence is a religion deserving of ridicule imo.
Actually I am not. I'll break it down very simply.
Again, if pro-abortionists are favored, anti-abortionists' rights are not being quashed in any way, as they can simply, again, get this: not get one.
Whereas if anti-abortionists are favored, then that means a total elimination of the right over one's own body; the loss of the right to choose, possible loss of the mother's life, etc.
Your argument here is backwards, and I'll say it again; people's lives and rights over their own bodies are infinitely more important than the simple "hurt feelings" caused by anti-abortionists being told to keep to themselves. Do you deny this last point? Simple yes or no answer please.
That's a poor argument. Most if not all anti-abortionists view the fetus as human life of some form and so to them it's a kind of injustice, even a murder.
The parallel you're pushing is akin to saying to people that are against capital punishment (execution) to just not execute anybody. If you view it as murder your values wouldn't allow you to just let it happen.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part which is why I reject your last point. It's not about feelings it's about morals and values.
Those values and morals are also not closed to non-religious people, Christopher Hitchens famously was against abortion except in extreme cases.