What two religions would u ban in ur country?

[fantome profane]

Kind of like what the Romans first did to the Christians and then what the Christians did to the Pagans.

And what the Nazi's did to the Jews.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Hinduism because it is polytheism of purest form.

I guess my question to you is, would you at least save the books? People talk about Hinduism in particular as being an extremely old religion. Do you believe that ancient writings at least qualify as some kind of human world heritage material? As we well know, these things can disappear. When people talk about Islam hundreds of years ago, they often mention that they liked to save old writings.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'd ban Pastafarianism.

It's not that I have anything against it, I just think it'd be hilarious to see the fallout from banning a joke religion

Ok in all seriousness I don't see the point in banning any religion ... but just imagine how confused the Pastafarians would be!

Try that and thou shalt feel the almighty fondling power of his noodly appendage.

 

[morphesium]

If by "true" you mean "tells stories or lessons about life and living that are valuable, moving, and meaningful," then yes, mythos is a central part of (probably) all religions, if not human culture on the whole (you do like movies and such, right?).

I can agree with this and of couse i do like movies. And i believe one can better implement "values of life" without religion than with religion.

If by "true" you mean "is taken literally like a piece of data or a science textbook," then I'm afraid you've had a very limited exposure to religions or been mislead by someone about their nature.

There are many people like this - much of the hardcore believers. This is where i see the problem. Most of the religions does not moderate itself. "Make (or incorporate) this religion (even) further into your life, the more rewarded you will be". And in that sense, all religion tries to make believers hardcore ones.

Oh, no worries, but I get really confused about comments like this because it makes no sense to me at all. There are truths - lessons to be had - in all things. I have a very hard time understanding people who are blind to that notion. It doesn't help that comments like this make no sense whatsoever when applied to my own religion. Basically what you're saying to me there is that since there's allegedly no truth in my religion, planet earth does not exist and neither do the stations of the sun and the resultant seasons (among countless other similar absurdities).

I do agree with this -"There are truths - lessons to be had - in all things". Let me take this a bit further; there are better ways of learning the lessons or truths, there are things that teach us better things, and there are things that conceal the truth and misdirect us from the truth.

I'm not seeing that. What I see is that in any cultural movement, there are those who establish something as a set tradition - who we can call "traditionalists" - and those who continue to let the movement change and adapt - who we can call "progressivists." Nothing in human culture ever fossilizes; there are always people who are changing and transforming a set of beliefs and/or practices. If this was not the case, we would not have the tens of thousands of religions on this planet that we do. People are ever seeking new ways of doing things, even as there are those who are keepers of tradition. That's a good thing. Traditionalism coupled with progressivism is vital to endeavors such as the sciences, to our modes of governance, as well as to religions.

Agreed, that is why we have non-orthodox thinking to begin with. And I do believe religions resists change.

Possibly true, from a certain point of view, but in honesty? If I'm going to start picking out the bad in everything, I can't find any rational justification for picking on religions, specifically, instead of just pointing a finger at the human species on the whole. But, on the whole, I'm not one to fixate on the trivial ounce of what I label as "bad" in something when there is typically a solid metric ton of "neutral" or "good."

I believe our morality is best in guiding us. The reason why we appreciate the "metric ton of good things" is that we are morally good.

One can't really generalize about how religions address the great questions... it depends on the religion, and more importantly, on the individual person, because that meaningfulness is always made on the level of the individual regardless of identification with a group. Some things to consider, though:

Are you of the belief that all questions can be answered "rationally," whatever that means to you? Or that all questions should be answered in that matter?

I believe that all questions that the religion answers can be better addressed scientifically . In fact, things concerning our emotions, our subconsciousness, our habits, our behaviors , our psychology, etc are all better understood scientifically. Science is helping people a lot to enjoy their life better.

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” ― Carl Sagan

What value do you place on emotions, whether its happiness and joy or jealousy and fear? Do you value the arts, whether its poetry or painting, movie or graphic novel? Do you like to have fun and to play? Have you considered that these things are non-rational? Why put "rational" on a pedestal?

Just because one is rational, I don't think one can't enjoy the goodness of life. I am someone with emotions, I do value arts and sci-fi movies, stories etc.

​

At any rate, you've got some very strange notions here to me. This notion of all religions being based on "faith" is very strange to me, and seems quite incorrect with what I've studied of the subject (in addition to failing to apply to my own religion). Further, given I'm both a scientist as well as strongly religious (and know others like this as well), I have to just scratch my head whenever someone insists that they somehow can't go together.

It is interesting to see life in its diversity.
At one side we have great scientists like Newton who was deeply religious and on the other side we have great non-religious scientists. Both of them blessing humanity.

As a scientist what is the "realm of science" that you contribute to? Best wishes.


“Be brave. Be free from philosophies, prophets and holy lies. Go deep into your feelings and explore the mystery of your body, mind and soul. You will find the truth.” ― Amit Ray

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

None, apart maybe ban the Scientology organisation. I don't care if someone believes in it personally, it's not the beliefs that I care about, it's the organisation. They're a frauding cult that leaves their members penny less, they have been known to brainwash people, divide families and possibly worse.

... can't believe I missed Scientology.

 

[Kirran]

I wouldn't ban any, but just a brief note r.e. Scientology - The Church of Scientology is a cult and a pretty awful organisation all in all. And yes, the vast majority of Scientologists do belong to the Church of Scientology. But there are also Free Zone Scientologists, who reject a lot of what the Church of Scientology has to say, reject the idea that advancement should cost money and have more variation and freedom in their practices. I see no reason to oppose this minority existing, and so I don't think that Scientology as a whole is bad, although the currently predominant organisation within it certainly has a crazy amount of issues and is often pretty damaging to people.

 

[Aquitaine]

It's a scam and it deserves nothing but being stamped into a chunky red soup.

To be fair, couldn't the same be said for practically every religion?

 

[Nietzsche]

To be fair, couldn't the same be said for practically every religion?

Most other faiths make some attempt at being on the level, and there tends to be a genuine attempt at being more than just money-grubbing parasites found on the collective ***-crack of the human race. $cientology is just about the money and destroying psychiatry. I've got more respect for the Westboro Baptist cess pools than I do $cientology. Hubbard was just a fraud and con-man. And a horrible science-fiction author. There is no possible way he was anything else. At least with Joseph Smith there exists some possibility he was just genuinely insane.

 

[Nietzsche]

I wouldn't ban any, but just a brief note r.e. Scientology - The Church of Scientology is a cult and a pretty awful organisation all in all. And yes, the vast majority of Scientologists do belong to the Church of Scientology. But there are also Free Zone Scientologists, who reject a lot of what the Church of Scientology has to say, reject the idea that advancement should cost money and have more variation and freedom in their practices. I see no reason to oppose this minority existing, and so I don't think that Scientology as a whole is bad, although the currently predominant organisation within it certainly has a crazy amount of issues and is often pretty damaging to people.

Fine, just the "Church", I don't care. It needs to be reduced to a fine pink mist.

 

[Aquitaine]

Most other faiths make some attempt at being on the level, and there tends to be a genuine attempt at being more than just money-grubbing parasites found on the collective ***-crack of the human race. $cientology is just about the money and destroying psychiatry. I've got more respect for the Westboro Baptist cess pools than I do $cientology. Hubbard was just a fraud and con-man. And a horrible science-fiction author. There is no possible way he was anything else. At least with Joseph Smith there exists some possibility he was just genuinely insane.

But considering how young Scientology is, how ethically would you reckon (for example) Christianity and Islam were when they were new and rapidly sought to expand their influence?
Indoctrination and murder comes to mind.

 

[illykitty]

I wouldn't ban any, but just a brief note r.e. Scientology - The Church of Scientology is a cult and a pretty awful organisation all in all. And yes, the vast majority of Scientologists do belong to the Church of Scientology. But there are also Free Zone Scientologists, who reject a lot of what the Church of Scientology has to say, reject the idea that advancement should cost money and have more variation and freedom in their practices. I see no reason to oppose this minority existing, and so I don't think that Scientology as a whole is bad, although the currently predominant organisation within it certainly has a crazy amount of issues and is often pretty damaging to people.

This is why I specified the organisation (by that I meant the church) and not the beliefs. I don't care if people believe in it, it doesn't bother me as long as they don't harm anyone.

 

[AdamE89]

Got to admit, very surprised, with the lack of Islam responses. Islam has no place in Western Society, so hands down them. Plus, in many Middle Eastern countries, Non-Muslims are treated much harsher than Muslims (such as getting jobs and practising their religion freely),so see how they like it when we ban their filth.

 

[Nietzsche]

Got to admit, very surprised, with the lack of Islam responses. Islam has no place in Western Society, so hands down them. Plus, in many Middle Eastern countries, Non-Muslims are treated much harsher than Muslims (such as getting jobs and practising their religion freely),so see how they like it when we ban their filth.

If we want to use this logic, Christianity has no place in Western Society either. Go back to the desert, if you'd be so kind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Got to admit, very surprised, with the lack of Islam responses. Islam has no place in Western Society, so hands down them. Plus, in many Middle Eastern countries, Non-Muslims are treated much harsher than Muslims (such as getting jobs and practising their religion freely),so see how they like it when we ban their filth.

How about we ban you God's filth of misogyny, slavery, genocide, and mass fetal executions?

 

[Sara.r]

Maybe just some of the ideologies who are so extreme and want to kill other believers, or ones who are irrationally insulting others( which mostly they are not a whole religion)
+ Nietzsche dude don't you even know that not all the Muslims are Arabs? For example Iranians had one of the biggest imperials at that time and they became Muslims without any force needed! Please watch your tongue and don't insult a whole religion all so easily.

 

[SomeRandom]

Maybe just some of the ideologies who are so extreme and want to kill other believers, or ones who are irrationally insulting others( which mostly they are not a whole religion)
+ Nietzsche dude don't you even know that not all the Muslims are Arabs? For example Iranians had one of the biggest imperials at that time and they became Muslims without any force needed! Please watch your tongue and don't insult a whole religion all so easily.

When did @Nietzsche say that all Muslims were Arabs?

 

[Sara.r]

He said go back to the desert and well that wasn't very much polite. And I said you can't insult all the Muslims like that, because a very little number of them were from desert

 

[outhouse]

>
What two religions would u ban in ur country?


Politics and government

 

[ChristineES]

I'm just jumping into this thread to state that I would never dream of banning anyone's religion, including any of those I would totally disagree with.

 

[Sees]

He said go back to the desert and well that wasn't very much polite. And I said you can't insult all the Muslims like that, because a very little number of them were from desert

I think there is a misunderstanding. His "back to the desert" seems directed towards Christians who want to keep Islam out of the West for some type of "it ain't from here" reasoning.