Theists can say what they will about atheists, but they don't see hordes of us indoctrinating our kids with garbage like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU-X1X-gyGE

This is what I was raised on.

(Not my video.)

I laugh, because in Russia they are labeled as extremists and practically (if not almost completely) banned. It's ironic how over here in the States we often think of Russians being extremists, but they're one of the only countries taking action against Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't care about Russia's reasons for doing it, just as long as cultish JW influence is stifled. Right on, Russia!

Video on JW's in Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72jAhjVoKRA

Extra Info: https://jehovahswitnessnews.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/urgent-breakin...

I say it's one step in the right direction, what do you think? Here's to hoping one day governments will start gunning down religions/cults (redundant) left and right.

Views: 0

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think we need to get into morals, ethics etc. Without governments the basic infrastructure of our nice, comfortable lives would crumble.
Objective--Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. Intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

How is morality objective again?

We need government if for no other reason than that human nature is greed and power. Survival of the fitest. Hell, even with laws, rules, regulations, morals, ethics whatever, we're still unable to treat eachother with respect, aid our fellow man, accept difference or care for the environment (let alone eachother!).

So what's your defense when a theist argues that we needs gods and religions to form our basis of right and wrong?
Holy shit. Gone for a few days and now I have a lot to respond to. First and foremost, morality is completely subjective, so screw that "morality is objective" crap. Show me this "majority" of people with an objective morality. I would dare say the no one can because everyone's morality differs in at least some way simply because morality is subjective and influenced by how one is raised as well as individual lines of thought or feelings.

Second, I again doubt the clear thinking of anyone who wants to live in an absolute anarchy. I suggest that we put everyone who does in an enclosed area with limited resources to see how that goes. No offense, but I think that many of you won't last a day. This sounds like college kids thinking Communism is great for solely romantic reasons without understanding how it functions in reality. Nothing more but outspoken, irrational youth rebellion.

Without government, none of us here would have the comfort we have today. Hell, we wouldn't even be on the Internet. I'm aware that Russia isn't exactly the most "free" place on Earth. I've seen the Putin Youth and I'll admit it sounds sketchy at best, I have to say that it reminds me of the Hitler Youth in the sense that it looks like disturbing worship of an individual with political leverage. However, I still stand besides my thought that taking the JW's out of the picture is a step in the right direction just as long as the organization is being hurt and not individuals.

On the topic of freedom, there is a difference between absolute freedom and having certain liberties. I agree with people like Edmund Burke who said "Before we let people do as they please, we ought to see what pleases them." Government is a balancing act. A good government weighs in the need of many with the need of the few/individual. I shouldn't be absolutely free to do whatever it is I want to do and neither should you or anyone else. What one person does can and will affect other people. To ignore this is just that: ignorance.

I agree with practically everything Mario Rodgers has written under my initial post and he's been like my voice while I was away. On the issue of governments using "force" to get people to pay taxes/bills, I think we need to stop being soft here. This is absolutely necessary for a stable society. We can cry about it all we want, but many of us reap in the benefits in infrastructure and programs every day of our lives. The various hospitals (I assume) we were all born in also benefitted from this and were thus able to do their jobs in making it easier for our mothers to go through the hell necessary to produce us. When done appropriately taxes are and can be a force for prosperity and progress. If someone wants to reap in the benefits but refuses to chip in, they do not deserve to be in a society, period. Notice I'm not saying those who can't, but those who have a choice and refuse. Sure governments use "force". News flash: sometimes it's necessary for the greater good. The key is figuring out when this is necessary and when it isn't.

Thanks for the interesting, free-thinking discussion everyone.

RSS

© 2013   Created by Morgan Matthew.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service