Thought without limit

What is clearly not socially acceptable is for a group of people to prevent others from living their lives as human beings. Religion is anti-human, for it erroneously proclaims to know what is best for everyone.

Would the world be a better place without religion? Without a doubt. Would I force theists to stop believing in order to live my way for a better world? Not at all, because religion has to die out its own way without some dictator forcing people to give up their unnecessary beliefs.

As it is, atheism and reality are gaining footholds in society whereby it is becoming easier for the younger generations to understand and gain access to the knowledge that religion does not adhere to reality. Silly ideas, and rightly so, tend to die out with the older generations. It is taking longer than it should, certainlly, but at least it is happening. Unfortunately, any real good that comes into this world always has to contend with the religious idea that things must go their way instead of the way of reality and humanism.

 

essentially , I am not ignored . i am patience , especially for those
who are here to be healed . philosophy is the foundation of psycho-
therapy , and in hip philosophy anarchy is a creative principle . in
divine anarchy creation is a power and also moral and not necessarily
tidy .

 

When or where does that happen?

No religion is a human practice.

It is easy to have a conviction without evidence. You have no evidence proving the theoretical.

Why?

As it is young people have a lot to learn and you lack the experience of your own peace.

 

I forgot to mention one has opinions for human rights. For the point of view of accusing one group for what it did or is doing by another, the opinions are to be discussed by relativity. The how does someone side get discussed winning as opposed to the other side. There is the situation where thought is without limit.

I wish I could find that video about trust in capitalist/christian America, and the hypocrisy by those being educated thus.

Don't get me wrong. Education in the U.S. at this point is fine, but maybe the "contradiction" is there irresolvable for individual aspiration: contradiction between "creators" and "producers". These characters of role playing may exist in the same classroom at the same time.

 

" Oh , i wouldn't like that road at all . Turtles would try to cross and nice
humanists would pick them up so stupidly as to set them back where
they came from , " says Jesus Is Ah Sea Turtle .

 

Human rights are a matter of common sense, the golden rule, not fallible opinion or nonsensical religious concepts.

 

What is the golden rule?

from wikipedia;
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code or morality that essentially states either of the following:

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. (Positive form)
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (Negative form, also known as the Silver Rule).
This concept describes a "reciprocal", or "two-way", relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally, and in a mutual fashion

This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self." Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. (For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group). Religions figure prominently in the history of this concept.

As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule", or "Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s. As a concept of "the ethic of reciprocity," it has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard way that different cultures use to resolve conflicts. It has a long history, and a great number of prominent religious figures and philosophers have restated its reciprocal, "two-way" nature in various ways (not limited to the above forms).

 

That one.

False. If religion even remotely attributed itself to the concept of the golden rule, it never would have harmed anyone who was different. Religion's wrong doings come straight from their twisted religion. Religion merely thinks it has a monopoly on morality; yet one just has to rely upon history to understand that religion's concept of morality includes harming anyone who was different.

Honestly, how many ways must I explain the obvious? Religion has always done, and will continue to do, more harm than good.

Religion only follows the golden rule so far as they were treated way back when in Rome when they were persecuted and tortured for their beliefs. They were tortured so they tortured, and continue to torture, others.

 

Fact, sayings attributed to jesus of nazareth, love thy neighbor as thyself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Again where are the statistical figures that document your statistical claims?

Again religions distortions are political not the substance of religion.

Again there are no mutually identifiable figures to document this claim and your repeating it makes it no more substantial a claim.

Fact regarding the religious position on this issue, in the face of persecution, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you and if someone should strike you on the cheek turn to him the other. You are fundamentally
unfamiliar with what you claim to expose as wanting.

 

False.

If you knew anything about religion, you would understand that it convolutes meanings for its own agenda. Hating on, hurting, killing, and denying rights to others is considered love by the twisted theistic standard. Why? Because they believe they are doing god's work.

As long as religion is in existence, there will always be the corrupt political aspect harming society. There is no way around it. Because some believer will always find a way to interpret scripture differently than someone else. Without religion, what message is there to reinterpret or distort in order to harm society? Without religion, witches would not have been burned. Think about it. Really think about it. If you cannot understand it, may you wallow in your ignorance.

 

In Japan, Shinto and Buddhism have existed together peacefully since Buddhism was introduced into Japan. A typical Japanese household will have two altars in their home---a Shinto one and a Buddhist one. A typical Japanese will be blessed in a Shinto shrine at 3, 5, and 7 years old, will honor his/her dead relatives at a Buddhist shrine, will be married in a Shinto shrine, and will have a buddhist funeral. You will find Shinto shrines in the grounds of a Buddhist temple, and Buddhist figurines and statues in the grounds of a Shinto shrine.

Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism have existed side by side peacefully in China for centuries. There was a time when Taoist and Buddhist temples fought, but it was not over religion, or religious ideals---rather it was politically motivated.

Western religion does have a problem in this regard. But it might be more suitable to change the dogma than to remove the belief.

On the other hand---what makes you think that removing the religion would stop the violence? For example, even as Buddhism and Shinto existed peacefully side by side, Japan did not have a peaceful history. In fact, history has shown that some of the bloodiest wars in history have followed periods of exceptional peace. World War I and World War II followed the relatively peaceful Victorian Era for example.

In fact, there is evidence that the most peaceful civilizations were those of many of the Goddess cults. The only weapons found in the digs of many Goddess sites in Southern India, Pakistan, and Southern Europe, were those used for ritual---primarily the double-headed axe that was used for the blood sacrifices.

Psychologically man does have a subconscious drive towards violence. This drive is associated with sex which is probably why so many Goddess cultures tended to be non-violent.

 

... and so is the OP's complaint , butt , oh well , that's tangle of
noodles . a certain friend of mine discovered buhddist meditation
and tea time to be extremely helpful with noodliness , and my oh
my in the bye and bye we have relief from his grumpiness (a porn
sort of violence - and relentless) .

 

Man blusters, the heat rising in his cheeks or puffing out his chest. If display doesn't work, then comes coercion. There is good for me and I must have it. Everything is love or the call for it.

 

And according to one of the Ancient Greek writers, it was desire first, that was created from the chaos before time began.

 

Hate causes conflict and potential violence. You are spreading hatred by your broad brush baseless attacks on harmless people-- Quakers, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc., and by not distinguishing between them and religious fundamentalists. Therefore, you are responsible for contributing to conflict and potential violence. Simple deductive logic. You have also failed to provide any evidence that religion has caused more harm to society than good. The thought of trying to do a valid cost-benefit analysis for religion is absurd, but if you talk the talk, you need to do the walk instead of spouting unsupportable generalities. Show us how you've quantified the intangibles involved. The fact that you never respond to legitimate questions and valid objections raised to your assertions seems to confirm NG's suspicion that your knowledge base might be a bit thin.

 

You're overgeneralizing again.

As long as people are in existence, there will always be the corrupt political aspect harming society(think of atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Korean Kims). There is no way around it. Should we get rid of them--people,that is?

 

..

 

.

 

...

 

the only limits on thought are those imposed by shared assumptions. unfounded ones generally.