Why religion is fundamentally and basically immoral and evil, and should be banned.

Like no other existing human enterprise, religion will one day lead its insane followers to start a nuclear war that will destroy us all over some insult to it or its deity or to the breaking of one of its commandments.
There is no comparable threat to our very existence from any other form of human activity.



Views: 224

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think a better bet than banning religion would be to redefine them. If they proselytise, penalise people who leave, etc, classify them as cults. Remove all tax funding and special privileges, remove them totally from education (unless someone wants to study a religion in University, say), Faith schools, creationist museum rubbish, and so on. Also remove their "cult leaders" from having an elevated platform for opinions in the media, treat them as if they were no different from any other Joe Bloggs
Religion should not be banned. It should be held to ridicule and scorn but not banned. Eric I hope you are joking. This kind of extremist thinking is identical to the "jihadists" and "branch davidians", and should not be tolerated among atheists. Violence against any person, religious or otherwise, because of some belief they hold is truly what needs to be "banned".
To paraphrase the gun control mantra:

If you ban religion only the fundamental extremists will be religious. You try telling some cleric in Crapistan that his religion is banned now. Remember, this is the same idiot that is offended by a stupid cartoon.

Now, banning ignorance would be a more noble cause, although almost as equally impossible.
Now, banning ignorance would be a more noble cause

Then this post wouldn't be here.
You are right that nuclear war has an aura of finality about it for human survival. Any causal factors that are not in dispute as a catalyst for such a holocaust should be repelled at almost any cost. But the empirical evidence for the causal factors requiring a preemptive response (we went down this road in 2003) should be unimpeachable.

The observation of religious activity and its conflicts as an inevitable causation for nuclear deployment should be beyond reproach or criticism of any kind. Given the exacting nature of the analysis of religion as a certain premise for nuclear horror, can you relate a scenario as highly plausible hypothesis involving religion and/or its conflicts generating a trigger for nuclear deployment?
The inherent problem with banning any viewpoint, especially a religious one, is that it will inevitably end in the viewpoint becoming revolutionary, and therefore attractive. While religion is certainly a misguiding viewpoint and should be frowned upon, banning it would be a foolish move.

You would be making religion a more viable form of anarchy.
Freedom from religion and freedom of religion are two inseparable sides of the same coin. Any power invasive enough to make that decision for individuals will take the role of religion. The Soviet Union was very much a replacement religion for it's citizens as it suppressed other religions.
Lots of luck with that.

Not something I support,[I think the premise is facile and naive at best]

However,I DO believe war and starvation are evil and should be banned.
However,I DO believe war and starvation are evil and should be banned.

Yeah! And so should unrequited love, insomnia, and jerks!!!
Don't forget women with muscly calves and emoticon reetards.
And pandas.
Topless old people, too

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service