6 ms·

I have so many questions. How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? What is an appropriate punishment? Why are Abrahamic religions whe ones which a

I have so many questions. How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? What is an appropriate punishment? Why are Abrahamic religions whe ones which are allowable but all others are not? What benefit would this provide? Do the benefits outweigh the harm? Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not? How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something? Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society? How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not I'm all for thought experiments and playing what-if, but if you're going to make the statement that my sheer existence should be illegal, I need quite a bit of clarity!

fknorangesite 3y ago
> What is an appropriate punishment? You know as well as I do that going down a road like what antibasilisk is suggesting only ends in concentration camps.
- hawkesnest 3y ago
  I do want to hear what they have to say. It sounds like they have some pretty out-of-the-box ideas about how society should function. Admittedly, it seems as though I would oppose those positions, but rather than dismiss them as the muses of a sociopath I prefer to get to specifics and address the idea in its entirety. The notion of forced religion certain could lead to the worst versions of theocracy imaginable, but surely someone would think things to their logical conclusion before professing something so heinous. Right?
  - hydrok9 3y ago
    They are wanting to think that they are taking the "long view" of things, are being totally logical,and that calling it "heinous" is simply the view of people on the wrong side of history.
antibasilisk 3y ago
>How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? It would be according to what is apparent from your statements, observances and symbolisms. If you wear a cross or a sockcloth for example, you are counted among the Christians until otherwise proven, a similar principle is applied to wearing a yarmulke, tefflin, kufi or hijab. These are of course not perfect metrics, but this was the standard used in the middle ages in Arabia, and it generally sufficed for demonstrating group identity in practice. >Do the benefits outweigh the harm? I think that it is important for humans to have some shared basis for a worldview, and the abrahamic religions encompass a significant enough portion of the world without so much variation as to be as problematic as other belief systems. >Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not? This is a question I have been exploring, and that I need to do more rigorous thinking on. I cannot provide a satisfactory answer at the moment, other than that people who take wholly symbolic positions on religions would definitely be excluded from those definitions (e.g: jungians, nontheist quakers). Other groups are a greyer area to me. >How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something? It's not necessary for us to go exploring your thoughts, that would be impractical and invasive. We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society. Although it's not possible to force someone to believe something, practising a belief may eventually lead to you feeling an affinity towards it if you're on the fence. >Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society? This question actually does very well in demonstrate the conflict in worldview that becomes apparent in the assumptions we use. What is 'positive'? As far as many religious people are concerned, a lack of blasphemy and irreligiosity is itself beneficial. >How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not Any given belief system necessarily has a certain tolerance for variation in beliefs, and usually a distinction is drawn between creedal differences and practical differences, with the former being a greater concern than the latter.
- hawkesnest 3y ago
  >We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society. This I can wholeheartedly agree with. In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture?

fknorangesite 3y ago

> What is an appropriate punishment? You know as well as I do that going down a road like what antibasilisk is suggesting only ends in concentration camps.

hawkesnest 3y ago
I do want to hear what they have to say. It sounds like they have some pretty out-of-the-box ideas about how society should function. Admittedly, it seems as though I would oppose those positions, but rather than dismiss them as the muses of a sociopath I prefer to get to specifics and address the idea in its entirety. The notion of forced religion certain could lead to the worst versions of theocracy imaginable, but surely someone would think things to their logical conclusion before professing something so heinous. Right?
- hydrok9 3y ago
  They are wanting to think that they are taking the "long view" of things, are being totally logical,and that calling it "heinous" is simply the view of people on the wrong side of history.

antibasilisk 3y ago

>How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? It would be according to what is apparent from your statements, observances and symbolisms. If you wear a cross or a sockcloth for example, you are counted among the Christians until otherwise proven, a similar principle is applied to wearing a yarmulke, tefflin, kufi or hijab. These are of course not perfect metrics, but this was the standard used in the middle ages in Arabia, and it generally sufficed for demonstrating group identity in practice. >Do the benefits outweigh the harm? I think that it is important for humans to have some shared basis for a worldview, and the abrahamic religions encompass a significant enough portion of the world without so much variation as to be as problematic as other belief systems. >Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not? This is a question I have been exploring, and that I need to do more rigorous thinking on. I cannot provide a satisfactory answer at the moment, other than that people who take wholly symbolic positions on religions would definitely be excluded from those definitions (e.g: jungians, nontheist quakers). Other groups are a greyer area to me. >How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something? It's not necessary for us to go exploring your thoughts, that would be impractical and invasive. We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society. Although it's not possible to force someone to believe something, practising a belief may eventually lead to you feeling an affinity towards it if you're on the fence. >Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society? This question actually does very well in demonstrate the conflict in worldview that becomes apparent in the assumptions we use. What is 'positive'? As far as many religious people are concerned, a lack of blasphemy and irreligiosity is itself beneficial. >How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not Any given belief system necessarily has a certain tolerance for variation in beliefs, and usually a distinction is drawn between creedal differences and practical differences, with the former being a greater concern than the latter.

hawkesnest 3y ago
>We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society. This I can wholeheartedly agree with. In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture?