When you're disrespectful to a religion you invalidate those it saves. I need to call you out. You know who.

And furthermore, I’m pretty sure all or most homophobic statements in the Bible are in the Old Testament. Which also says things like eating shrimp is bad and that wearing mixed fabric clothing is bad, which tons of Christians do. Meaning that the people who think that homosexuality is bad because a verse in Deuteronomy said so are extremely out of touch with the rest of the contents of the Bible.

That as well is true. And that becomes hypocrisy quickly.

They're mostly purposeful mistranslations, 4 example, the man as women verse actually was more aligned with "I forbid you from laying with female children as I forbid you from lying with male children"

There actually are some bible verses in the New Testament against homosexuality as well

I'm not trying to take any sort of political stance with this by the way;
Can you give me an example?

Romans 1:27
Likewise, men gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameful acts with men and received in their own persons the fitting penalty for their perversion.

Also, Satanism is to be respected *except for when you frame Christianity for indoctrination*. You're just being edgy. If you don't appreciate this opinion we may never agree.

Hey, Mitra, if you're being quiet but still reading this- to be religious is to respect other religions. You believe in Satanism but hate almost every other mainstream religion. Then, you say Satan is a role model. There are many forms of him, so it's unclear what religion you hate most.

Who's Mitra?

Some self professed Satanist who hates all religions, thinks it's wrong and just has outlandish opinions in general about religion.

Is that MaggotsInMySkin?

Yes, it would be.

yes, don't hate on those who simply believe in god(s) hate on those who use that belief as a reason to damage and opress others. not all christians are bigoted jerks, much like not all LGBTQ+ people are godless heathens. if we generalize religious people as homphobic monsters, it's not much different from when they generalize us as unhinged, immoral, groomers. Judge people by their actions and words, not their cultures or beliefs.

I could really give a shit about how you worship if you act mature and good to others

Dude, you're not really understanding me. I don't think that the bible is an evil book full of evil homophobic words. I dislike the institution. I couldn't care less about what the book says when I've been told that I should kill myself and that I'm a man and that I'm crazy 4 being trans by a whole lot of christians but zero satanists. The book doesn't matter, what matters is how the people act.
And I'm still against the chill people as I'm against flat earthers: Faith leads to faith, and innocuous faith that, for example, the exodus happened asks of you to accept that things can be real with cero proof, based only on how you'd like them to be real. Just like antivaxxers, transphobes, people who believe in the "jewish reptilian secret government"
I can be chill w/ the chill ones,but I'll never believe believing in religion is correct in any situation. I like to act like Zarathustra at the end of Nietzsche's book's first chapter.
"And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra laughing like schoolboys. When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible!? The old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, god is dead."

Have you been told to kill yourself by Buddhists or Jewish people?
How is it not correct? It literally is the very reason slaves would continue trying to work and escape their status in the 1800s

I'd have been if those were the main religions, because as I said, religion creates a power that's only checked by other religions.
And like... how is religion the reason why the slaves wanted to scape? The search for freedom is an inherent human desire, leaving behind the comfortable known to fly away. Sacrificing the comfortability of what you know for the freedom to know the real world and do as you please. That search culminates with leaving behind all irrational notion. Like myths, yk?

It was considered an injustice for them to be enslaved. It taught love. It also gave them something to believe in.

It was considered an injustice on a humanistic level. The bible did promote slavery so like...
And even if it did, it's something obsolete. We have better explanations for things. We've separated ourselves from the abstract and non utilitarian morals that cause discrimination. I'm not saying religion never had a use. All I'm saying is that it has served it.

And for many it shall continue to serve.
Fun fact, my grandfather who follows religion closely did not before; and in those years he didn't he found himself cynical, and one for substance abuse and law breaking. You might not know but there are many good old people (yeah, if I called you out I meant to) who are better with religion. They have hope and something to live in.

I wanna phrase this in the least mechanical and inhuman way possible.
Believing in something illogical just for emotional comfort is a behavior of those who are weak of mind imo.
And like, also, compare statistics, for every "your grandpa" case there are a whole lot of assholes radicalized by religion.

I'll give you that
And disrespecting those who find solace in something no matter how small is dishonorable and rude
There's an idiot born every minute, too, so, it's very coincidental that all of us are here. Or maybe, not all of us are perfect in the noggin (I'm joking, I still like you Mitra, I'm trying to be civilized)
But no. I agree on corruption. But corruption runs through human nature, not religion. Religion often helps. Those who are religious assholes act like a prick all the time, regardless of how they believe. That's a fact of life.

The solace can be found in some other more logical things: You can see how in the end we go back to the earth, everything ends, so every negative and positive equals zero in comparison with the infinite, making all suffering meaningless, so why worry.
And like, faith is the most corruptible and corrupting thing there is. Like my definition of religion excludes and includes some weird shit. Satanism and Deus Absconditus/Otiotus christianity (4 example) are not religions. Juche, the alt right and fascism do work as religions, based in faith. And like, if you include deus otiosus as christian, then Im a devout christian btw.

I'm going to say it.
Bagpipes from Baghdad to me. We may never agree. Do you want to continue or get the feeling of winning by me.giving up (because this isn't necessarily how I want to spend my day)?

Not really. I'm just sharing ideas with a friend <3

I think civility is the soul of friendship.

Am I not being civil? Bc I'm trying to,

You are, very civil. One of the best to debate with anywhere really.

Thx <3
I've been told that a lot of times. I'm gonna sound like one of those competitive smash players that get angry over items, but if politics was only abt being a good demagogue, I think I could speedrun becoming president of spain in like 8-12 years.

Adolf Hitler was a modern demagogue. I assume you mean debater rather than whatever type of monster shit he was.

A demagogue is a term for someone who argues and debates. It's a word for both a speech giver and a debater. I'm a demagogue, not a nazi demagogue. Like you use guns, you're a shooter, right? if you used that word, I wouldn't tell you I assume you mean a person who shoots a gun at things that aren't people, not a shooter, like the boston ones.

I wish you worded it better but

I think saying someone uses guns and calling someone a shooter are two very different things because of semantic and what is functionally how we speak in the modern world based off of how we are today (where a shooting is a massacre in media)

Ok, you're right, I misinterpreted the definition from context. I'm an orator. Demagogue sounds cooler tho. Decided to google and I'm wrong, a demagogue is someone who rather than arguing incites feeling in his side of a discussion, so like exactly what I'm denouncing LMAO.

Actually, debate

Do you think that there should be a law or regulation outlawing religion of any sort?

Organized religion. Anything else would be impossible to enforce. I'd also classify as child abuse making your children be religious until they're like... let's say 14/16 years old.

Religion is just a belief as to how one can be rewarded after their life. I agree that it's inherently flawed as it makes idealistic assumptions about life itself, but it's fundamentally still a belief. Any parent should be allowed to teach their kid whatever they desire within the confines of law, and I believe religion should be exempt from any law. Grooming them and being creepy? Yeah, that deserves to be classified as child abuse. But teaching them a religion which will teach them how to be a (mostly if not entirely) good person which will benefit society in numerous ways? I think that's excellent. You might not agree with it, and it technically may not be objectively true, but as you're an anarchist who literally thinks that laws are bad and anyone should be allowed to do what they want, shouldn't you at least concede that people should be able to do what they want in that regard? Furthermore, outlawing organized religion implies that the government that will stop it inherently knows what is true and isn't. This is bad. The government has proven several times that it has been wrong before. So enforcing its beliefs (which oftentimes are subjective) on the people is against freedom and letting people do what they want. I personally believe that the government should attempt to have at least of a political opinion as it possibly can. Maybe to the extent of recognizing historical genocides the Holocaust, but that's it. In 1984 there is literally a "Ministry of Truth" dedicated to calling its subjective, authoritarian beliefs objective ones.

Here's another thing: You can't prevent horrible things done by inherently horrible people, like child abuse, and you can't have things to mitigate that, like Child Protective Services, without having an overreaching organization to manage that sort of thing - and now you basically have a government. I agree that most laws tend to restrict people. For that reason I'm a libertarian. But you absolutely cannot have a properly functioning society if you let people decide what they want. For example, murders would skyrocket. And murder actually infringes on people's freedoms, since it obviously stops them from doing what they normally want. So in some cases, a government can actually be beneficial in providing freedom to the individual.

The core principle of anarchy isn't the "no laws" stuff, that's the liberal side. Anarchism is what it says on the tin: An - ark - ia, no superior ism. The word comes from Athens and means a moment where there is no archon, no "president", just the assembly. That's what I mean by anarchism bc a president is either a meaningless figurehead or a dangerous appointment that gives too much power to a single person.
Secondly, I'm not against parents teaching morality: the problem is faith. And continuing with how you mentioned 1984, I genuinely believe the party's systems are great in everything but the faith: decentralizing the government, giving power to those who are innately more capable instead of assuming every opinion is equally valid. The problem is the blind faith, something that religion introduces to children. The act of introducing religion to kids itself is grooming, albeit not the sexual kind. Eliminating organized religion represents reducing that same faith problem.
And also, in the last paragraph you're dealing in binaries: yeah, you may not be able to stop all examples of child abuse, but you can stop most; and no one is irredeemable. I'm genuinely against the death sentence, I feel like prisons should be reintegrative, instead of punitive, and sentences be indefinite until a psych analysis reveals higher levels of empathy. Prisoners should do work for the state that doesn't need any qualifications, like record keeping and all that stuff.

So do you agree with something like direct democracy then?

I really feel that people with an IQ percentile under 75 shouldn't vote, as higher IQs tend to represent a higher logical thinking ability and less of a chance to be swept up by feelings, but yeah, a more direct approach seems better to me

I pretty much completely agree with that, I think major and more understandable issues should be voted on by the entire population while a random group of people chosen like how jury duty is done, chosen from each state similar to how representatives in Congress are split up, should be chosen to act part-time as Congress to vote on more minor issues for something like six months in exchange for being financially reimbursed. We still should also have federal agencies when regarding objectively good things like NASA, which is why I still think a government entity in that regard would be good.

Regarding your take on punishment, I almost completely agree as well on that it should be rehabilitative, although I think you are forgetting that people like psychopaths exist. Saying “nobody is irredeemable” is kind of a baseless and idealistic statement when there are plenty of objectively bad people in this world that regardless of whether you want them to exist or not simply cannot be ignored. I think that if the state tried focused on rehabilitating these people it would involve a massive amount of effort wasted. But of the overwhelming majority of individuals who do not act inherently psychopathic in nature, I do believe that they absolutely can be redeemed.

First of all, Idk if you just ain't mentioning it or your eyes glazed over it, but a big prt of my ideal system includes not letting non HAL people vote. Like at all.
And also, you could have a psycopath stuck into high functioning, and the idea of "indefinite sentences" also solves that. You're irredeemable? Have fun being a record keeping slave till u die ^^

You seem to have an obsession with IQ. I don’t think it objectively judges intelligence that well. I think allowing only high IQ people to vote would significantly alienate some of the individuals who have a lower IQ but who are much more creative.

First of all, Ik IQ isn't perfect, but it's the best measure we have rn.
And secondly, you know that one of the five criteria of IQ is creativity and the ability to think outside the box, right?

You never mentioned in your previous comment “HAL”, nor what it even meant, of which I would like to know.

High ability learners, people with 120 or more iq in the obsolete tests. Idr remember how much it was in percentiles, but I aproximate it being 75 Ig. Like the top quarter

don't have the time rn, can you pin me tmr so I can answer (For me tomorrow is in about 10 hrs)

yeah sure

K