• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

This is my philosophy - agree with it or no?

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I believe that we should "reboot the world."

Every single human should unite to a One World Government, even force every human to one big landmass, one country.

And let them live in that one and only country, a new life.

A place where misconceptions, misinformations, false statements, lies, bigotry and racism aren't available.

Only facts, historical facts, scientific facts and anything that is factual or substantiated proof supporting a legend, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha.

One impartial education system for everyone, not some, but everyone. Not just a few knows and the rest are stupid idiots, but we all know.

Religions that teach inaccurate things such as Earth is flat or 6,000 years old should be eradicated. Religions are only allowed as philosophies or religions that are not incompatible to the scientific world.

Just imagine, no Young Creationists, no evolution-deniers, no Holocaust-deniers, no white supremacists, no ignoramuses.

This is because there would be no parents that will teach the children. but teachers teaching children. And we aren't speaking about public-school level of a teacher, I believe that if we go by this New World Order, we can eventually be extremely intelligent at only the age of 8! What is usually known as a 9th grade, usually achieved at 16 years of age, could be achieved at a much younger age, probably at 8!

In order to make this happen, the child would be forced out of the family after 5 years old. He will live in one big state-owned institution with a new "family" (basically a boarding school with no possibility to ever meet your family again, and basically learn to live with your new family that will be with you until you're 25 and fully graduated).

University-level of teachers will teach children about various topics, without simplify it, at a relatively young age.

This will be because the children are not products of the culture and environment they are from, as well as parents. But instead, the products of schools, government teachings.

They won't hate, say, homosexuals because a book tell them to hate them, they will not resort to the same fallaciously, laughable, petty arguments that has been debunked countless of times.

If they hate it, they would be writing scientific documents on why they believe it is wrong, as neutral and scientific as possible. If it is accepted as fact, he's correct. If not, he should change his opinion to the correct one, if he refuses and secretly keep teaching this, he will get to jail, we don't need more believers of misinformation.

There will be no pathetic protests that are against something good.

Internet would most likely decay too, because taking a look at the YouTube comments makes me doubt my philosophy. People wouldn't learn, orally [I've heard that...]. But through credible sources [According to.., therefore...].

If a person wants to learn something, he shouldn't quote RationalWiki, Wikipedia or a YouTube video. But from something credible, such as a book by a renowned author, perhaps a scientist or a historian that accurately documents these, say, scientific or historic facts (the government will determine true educational books and partial propaganda).

Russia wouldn't teach one perspective and no other, America one, but no other and China from a third perspective, while ignoring the rest of the perspectives.

What is historical, thus subjective, will capture all of the perspectives, but strongly suggests to rely on what the book calls for the most plausible and substantiated perspective.

What is scientific, thus objectively impartial, shall capture only the true perspective and ignore the others that are false that some countries might be teaching.

It's basically eugenics of many kinds; no stupid people, no intellectually disabled people, no propaganda and no evil people (Theft? Execution. Rape? Execution, as well as the victim. Murder? Torture for 10 years until the last day where you will be executed, there will be no "lesser" punishment, if you violate the rules, you will face capital punishment. Even though, this seems too harsh, that's the effective way of a peaceful place where people are too scarred of doing crimes, because if they aren't caught, great for them, but they eventually will and then they will be executed.)

Things that can be achieved by observational breeding. If someone seems to be a danger for the civilized world, it will be executed. There will also be a children restriction, only 2 children. If more, all the children will be executed and the parents would be sterilized.

That is my philosophy. Every human living by one and same Government, with one perspective of the facts, not all the rest of the lies. Some would call it for a dictatorship, but I suppose, this would be a true utopia. A pacifist world.

Do you agree with my worldview? I know that the leaders of the country could eventually become corrupt, but if we imagine a theoretical leader that will never become corrupt nor his successors. What do you think then?

I don't see the point in an authoritarian government nor do I see the point of a forced utopia.....
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Is the OP facetious? I don't know. I regularly get accused of not believing what I post. But I know better, & it reflects poorly on the accuser.

I am easily taken in by POEs.

The curse of the honest, I suppose. Don't understand Muslim atheist Nazis.

Tom

I ak
 

Slaedi7324

Member
Why did you not add this below, when you stated this above?




pretty sharp contradiction

"My religion, muslim"

"not a muslim"
Either you believe muhammad, or you do not. Please enlighten us on your true belief.
*Sigh* I repeat "
You act as if I rejected myself to be a Muslim, I did not. I am though, not a theistic Muslim. Apatheist/atheist/agnostic does not equate to irreligion.

Reading comprehension, I have advised you it for so many times. Learn it."

Also about "believe in Muhammad," Muhammad isn't a legend, it's a historic fact that he existed and I follow his Sunnah.
You know nothing about my 'faith'.
You're Jew, that's all I need to know. You're responsible for 60 million deaths in WW2.
Is the OP facetious? I don't know. I regularly get accused of not believing what I post. But I know better, & it reflects poorly on the accuser.
Agreed.
 

Slaedi7324

Member
Because it is a dictatorship. I thought you
were being facetious on RedCommies introduction thread when you said that you were a Nazi. But I guess not.

Yuck. That's what I think of your "philosophy". It's evil.

Tom
You're being mean. National Socialism is a pretty Utopian lifestyle, ideology, religion, etc.
 

Slaedi7324

Member
I am easily taken in by POEs.

The curse of the honest, I suppose. Don't understand Muslim atheist Nazis.

Tom

I ak
I'm not a POE, whatever that means, I am not an atheist, I prefer not to be called for a Nazi. I am only partially Muslim, I also follow my influences of Theravada Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I believe that we should "reboot the world."

I would not agree with the terminology, but I believe if we were to discuss it, or as I continue reading, we would agree on this point.

Every single human should unite to a One World Government, even force every human to one big landmass, one country.

I absolutely, 100% disagree with this. One government is the exact opposite of the right way to go, at least the way I see it. Self rule is my perspective, even if it's a utopian fantasy. One government paves a path directly to complete totalitarianism.

A place where misconceptions, misinformations, false statements, lies, bigotry and racism aren't available.

I agree to an extent. It isn't that the shouldn't be available but rather we should naturally be above them.

Only facts, historical facts, scientific facts and anything that is factual or substantiated proof supporting a legend, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha.

Disagree. You absolutely cannot ignore the importance of myth on the human mind. Our entire species, at this point, is centered around beliefs and myths. Even the language we use can be tied to these, perhaps language was created partly just to record beliefs! The days of the week are simply based around subjective interpretations of time and the sun / moon. We simply should separate the fact from the myth.

One impartial education system for everyone, not some, but everyone. Not just a few knows and the rest are stupid idiots, but we all know.

This is too vague, I would need details to comment.

Religions that teach inaccurate things such as Earth is flat or 6,000 years old should be eradicated. Religions are only allowed as philosophies or religions that are not incompatible to the scientific world.

First of all, what the **** do you mean by "eradicated"??? How would we "eradicate" them? Second, I refer back to the point about myths in that all we need to do is separate the fact from the fiction.

Just imagine, no Young Creationists, no evolution-deniers, no Holocaust-deniers, no white supremacists, no ignoramuses.

This is because there would be no parents that will teach the children. but teachers teaching children. And we aren't speaking about public-school level of a teacher, I believe that if we go by this New World Order, we can eventually be extremely intelligent at only the age of 8! What is usually known as a 9th grade, usually achieved at 16 years of age, could be achieved at a much younger age, probably at 8!

We are limited by human nature though. Part of the problem with the "teaching" (read: indoctrinating / brainwashing) young children certain beliefs is that we are incapable of thinking rationally and abstractly until somewhere around the age of 12.

In order to make this happen, the child would be forced out of the family after 5 years old. He will live in one big state-owned institution with a new "family" (basically a boarding school with no possibility to ever meet your family again, and basically learn to live with your new family that will be with you until you're 25 and fully graduated).


Absolutely ****ing disagree. This is one of the worst outcomes I could possibly imagine. We are talking Nazi level stuff or middle age Church rule, except for a focus on logic and science. The issue here is not the topics, it is the nature of the system as well as the human mind. People will want to take control, people will want power, and so on. Think about Stalin in Soviet Russia. It is this one way, one rule, one government type idea that is the issue, not the subject being taught.

In fact, I think this greatly reminds me of the Overseers in the video game Dishonored.


This will be because the children are not products of the culture and environment they are from, as well as parents. But instead, the products of schools, government teachings.

Incorrect. Schools and government are certainly a huge aspect of our environment, yet it is the environment itself that helps form us, including culture and parenting, as well as our own nature. We may end up causing humanity worse damage if we take away some of the other aspects of our environment.

I apologize, but there is a lot of content here, which is respectable. However, I do not have the time as I'm only like halfway through. Generally my opinion on the topics continues in predictable ways. Feel free to ask any questions.
 

Slaedi7324

Member
Moses has zero historicity as ever existing. What do you mean scientific fact?
Historic evidence supports a leader for the Hebrews against the Canaanite land, that could be very well Moses, as the legend is based on. Not direct proof, but it supports a role similar to the one of Moses. That's what a legend is, the proof is substantiated though. Thus, my point should be clear.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Historic evidence supports a leader for the Hebrews against the Canaanite land

Provide credible sources.

All credible historical knowledge shows Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites, and that there never was a conquest of any kind.


Your sentence above is a known muslim apologetic philosophy though.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I think it's a good ideal that we can work together and I disagree because we all have differences and if we can find unity within those differences rather than make one country that things the same way, that would be respect to the person and to the country as a whole.

I do have a pet peeve with the science argument. Religion by its very nature is based on personal experience, faith, and practice. Science, from what I know of it, doesn't have the "religious" undertone thus lifestyle with which all religions have. I mean, I heard of the denomination Scientology; but, I don't know if that's a religion or not.

Religion is based on people's testimony's not legends. Moses wrote what God told Him about the red sea parting. That's Moses' personal testimony not a legend. If we translated it to factual terms, maybe where he parted the red sea was where the actual red sea is on our map. There could have been a storm that flooded the army who tried to attack the Israelite; who knows? It could be people's testimony's that they saw the red sea part (as we see birds but not the air that supports them) and they translate it as God's doing (since we don't control the Ocean nor do we the Moon's gravitational pull) when it could have been the Moon and in the bird's case, maybe five thousand years from now they may consider our "the bird is flying without anything to sustain him" as legend but to us, we know its air even though we cant see it.

Our realities change in different time periods. What we think is fact years ago we discover today is considered false in relation to our "newly discovered" findings. When we are just finding something new (as they did) that people years later may consider as legend.

So everything is reality, no matter how you flip the coin. We can choose to believe in the supernatural or coin it to coincidence or made up stories but the fact is it is written as a testimony and we can't interview the person to prove its validity, thereby we can't say its right or wrong we can only assume based on what we think is true now.

We have been so Egotistic about thinking we know what's right when time continues, new things evolve, and what we consider new stuff today may be someone else's legend later.

Do you agree with my worldview? I know that the leaders of the country could eventually become corrupt, but if we imagine a theoretical leader that will never become corrupt nor his successors. What do you think then?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Only facts, historical facts, scientific facts and anything that is factual or substantiated proof supporting a legend, such as Moses

Learn the definition of "legend," I didn't say that Moses is historically factual. Once again, reading comprehension is strongly advised

You stated in context, facts support the legend of Moses. I asked for sources to substantiate your position, you claim has substantiated proof.

So provide them.
 
Top