• Pseudonym
    129


    No, I don't support the banning of public religious practices. What I'm speaking out in support of is the right of people to reach that conclusion if they genuinely believe it's in the best interests of society without being branded a fascist irrational zealot. I would disagree with them, but in a complex world where so many factors need to be taken into account I refuse to acknowledge that religion is somehow immune from that possibility.
  • Pseudonym
    129


    So if a teacher in a faith school teaches that all non-believers are so evil that they deserve to be tortured for eternity, that's fine, but I'm not allowed to suggest that any religious practices not already illegal might be harmful, without being banned from debate?
  • T Clark
    1.6k
    And if the moderators here want to be consistent in upholding the forum's guidelines, fascist views like yours ought to be a ban worthy offense.Buxtebuddha

    Given the troubles you have had with moderation in the past, I'm surprised you would say that.

    Although I find the positions Pseudonym has expressed in this discussion poorly argued and morally suspect, I have no question he should be allowed to make them on this forum.
  • Buxtebuddha
    1.4k
    Given the troubles you have had with moderation in the past, I'm surprised you would say that.

    Although I find the positions Pseudonym has expressed in this discussion poorly argued and morally suspect, I have no question he should be allowed to make them on this forum.
    T Clark

    This forum isn't a shelter for every nutcase who fumbles through its doors. If Pseudonym wants to peddle his thinly veiled fascism, he ought to go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/
  • SonJnana
    234
    Oh okay I agree with you then. Under the right circumstances, people in a society will choose anything that suits their interests. If you were to even say that people can decide to support tyranny under the right circumstances, I still wouldn't call you an irrational fascist.

    A lot of those circumstances however may be theoretical rather than practical. Like for example I can't think of a practical set of circumstances why choosing a dictator would suit the best interests of America. Doesn't seem like circumstances like that will ever arise, but then again we may never know. I thought you were saying that under the circumstances we have right now, faith schools should be banned. I'm not sure a case for banning faith schools will arise that will suit people's interests, but we will see.
  • TheMadFool
    1.9k
    First, I didn't say it, Wikipedia did.

    Second, I didn't bold that particular line, so it doesn't even come into play.

    Third, and finally, if a delusion was an idea that is out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background, then that means that every new denomination or sect of an existing religion that forms is a delusion. This means that Jesus was delusional because his ideas were out of keeping with the social and cultural background he found himself in.

    Obviously, thinking differently isn't a symptom of a delusion. It is thinking illogically on purpose, and only in a particular case or for a particular belief, in order to avoid the logical truth, that is a delusion.

    Think, people, before posting your comments.
    Harry Hindu

    The definition of delusion is so framed as to exclude religion from being a mental illness. I don't know how justified that is but it is clear that those who made the definition wanted this.

    Not all people who think differently are delusional, I agree but the definition clearly states that thinking differently and NOT accepting evidence to the contrary is a delusion.

    It appears that the people who defined delusion forgot to mention that the belief itself must be well-supported by evidence. Perhaps they were not philosophers.
  • Pseudonym
    129


    I'm sorry but that's twice you've openly called me a fascists and that's really not acceptable.

    Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    I have advocated none of the above;

    I have not even mentioned nation or race (yet you have twice presumed that the laws of America automatically equate with moral virtue).

    The only vague reference to the style of government I prefer was my statement that society should be made up of the action of all it's individuals (which is pretty much the definition of democracy).

    We already live in a society where economics and culture are highly regulated, they're just regulated by cultural institutions, not governments and I'm advocating giving children the freedom to think for themselves rather than indoctrinating them in some arbitrary cultural value.

    As for forcible suppression of opposition, remind who is trying to ban whom?
  • Pseudonym
    129
    If you were to even say that people can decide to support tyranny under the right circumstances, I still wouldn't call you an irrational fascist.SonJnana

    Finally, someone gets it! I feel like I've been wading through treacle, thank you for sticking with it so calmly, my exposition must be considerably poorer than I hoped it might be.

    I do think we are bordering on circumstances where an argument could be made for the banning of faith schools, but then I think the same is true of boarding schools too. Given the unacceptable rate of child abuse in both of these types of institution, I just feel that putting a load of children in any institution where they are told to unquestioningly accept the moral authority of a small number of adults is a recipe for disaster, which is a view shared by many prominent sociologists and child psychiatrists. When you add to this rather toxic cocktail the fact that religious schools teach children that to suffer in this life is noble and will be rewarded in heaven, the 'harms' list starts to look too large for me.

    At the very least there should be much stricter regulation of these institutions, with frequent independent checks, but that's not going to happen whilst people blindly associate religion with moral virtue in the face of clear evidence to the contrary like Cardinal Law https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/20/cardinal-bernard-law-death-survivors-react
  • SonJnana
    234
    It's strange because on one hand I really wish institutions like this weren't a thing, but at the same time I don't want to ban them. I want people to lawfully be able to preach religion, but I don't want the people to preach it. I think the government should play a more active role to prevent that fucked up molesting shit in these institutions.

    I'm against indoctrinating children in general. I think it's messed up that you can brainwash a kid into having a world view about the ultimate truth, one that isn't demonstrated and can cause traumatizing emotional fear for the rest of their life if they try to escape it. They should be able to decide for themselves when they get older. But of course I know I can't tell parents how to raise their children on this issue.

    Regardless even if I did want to ban faith schools and public religion, I think the emotional reaction and divisiveness that would probably arise shuts down any practicality in that. There is no way that's gonna happen anytime soon.
  • Joel Bingham
    6
    most theists deny that evolution occurred and also deny that prayer cannot scientifically allow you to communicate with anyone or anything among others
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    623
    most theists deny that evolution occurred and also deny that prayer cannot scientifically allow you to communicate with anyone or anything among othersJoel Bingham

    Theism is belief in the existence of deities.

    Please address how belief in the existence of deities is a mental illness, not arbitrary things like denial of evolution.

    And please tell us that you are not implying that denying evolution is a mental illness.
  • Joel Bingham
    6
    No I am definitely not saying denying evolution is a mental illness I was referring to religion as a form of denial and I gave two examples and I must have forgotten to write ‘among others’ I was referring to religion as a denial of scientific evidence rather that a mental illness. I thought this was implied.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.