Re: God is a Lie!
You're totally off. There are plenty of countries in the Western world which make everything you have written false. Heck, even in the staunchly religious Latin America you find countries with legalized gay marriages, abortions, euthanasia and yes, even a non-Native PM. Take Peru for example, they actually made a Japanese man, Alberto Fujimori, their leader. So your entire argument falls through in the face of this.
Now you're selectively cherry-picking examples to advance your point. You were the one who brought up the "sole superpower" argument, so I countered it with examples of religious backwardness stymieing social progress . Now you're talking about Peru and other countries. We can go there if you want, as long as you don't jump to another country yet again:
Religion in Peru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although the Constitution states that there is freedom of religion, the law mandates that all schools, public and private, impart religious education as part of the curriculum throughout the education process (primary and secondary).[3] Catholicism is the only religion taught in public schools. In addition, Catholic religious symbols are found in all government buildings and public places.
If you weren't closed-minded, you would not be calling for the eradication of other people's beliefs and we would not be having this discussion.
It's called "education" and "societal enlightenment", and its very purpose is eradication of primitive beliefs. I hope you never get into a position where you have to direct state policy, because if you do, your "let people believe what they want" attitude isn't going to be conducive to policy making.
No, it does not encroach upon my way of life!! It's ridiculous to think that! I live in Canada so if I had to actually sit down and convince myself by "thinking it through" that I'm being discriminated, than obviously, I'm
not being discriminated!! Who said that on Diwali and Gurpurab you should not work? Sikhism's main concept is to work hard and keep striving for betterment (
Kirat Karo). Canada is a Christian majority country and I have no problem at all sitting at home and getting paid doing nothing or going to work and getting paid double the money on Christian holidays! That's a gift in itself!
And this is the point I keep raising about intolerant theists and atheists. You think on the exact same lines as your divisive peers!
So the fact that you're being subject to religious discrimination by the state funding faith based holidays of one particular group but not another doesn't matter? In a truly secular state, why should the state give preference to one religious group over another? How about the fact that some Canadian provinces fund Catholic schools from the public purse, but refuse to similarly support schools of other denominations?
What about atheists/agnostics who have to pay taxes for these religious schools or holidays? Why should they be forced to do so?
My point is that you're taking a very simplistic and "Indian" view, which is somewhat idealistic and does not apply in real life. We can't just let people believe what they want because the results of those beliefs then ripple out across the entire society. A small group of religious fundamentalists can cause changes in the law which would then negatively impact the rest of the population.
Did you hear about the recent case of a German Jew who filed a lawsuit against his parents for circumcising him as a child? The court ruled in his favour, judging that his parents had no right to mutilate his genitals for the sake of their religious beliefs, and that circumcision should be an individual's personal decision when he reaches the age of majority. An eminently sensible ruling, but it was overturned by a law brought soon after that made such lawsuits impermissible.
The point in all this is that if theism was limited to a spiritual belief and did not extend beyond that, everyone would be fine with it. But in the vast majority of cases, the type of brain that produces a theist is also the type of brain that is closed to reason, logic, and rational thinking on a universal scale. By definition, a theist "believes" vehemently in something that cannot be proven to be true through any logical, rational or deductive argument. This pattern of thought process also makes the theist vulnerable to belief in other things which are not supported by evidence, whether it be superstitions related to his/her faith as in the circumcision case above or in terms of imposing his beliefs on society when it comes to laws that are modelled on religious beliefs.
Don't connect that with this topic since euthanasia is a separate topic in itself. In atheist China, euthanasia is still illegal, while in Christian conservative country like Mexico, it is legal. So again, your argument doesn't add up.
Again you are cherry picking examples to suit your thesis. In Mexico, only "passive euthanasia" is legal. This is not euthanasia at all, because the patient's only choice is to refuse medication, which will slowly, and in many cases, painfully cause death after many weeks or months of suffering. The whole purpose of euthanasia is to avoid this suffering and allow the patient to choose a quick, speedy and painless death. This is still not allowed due to theists asserting their right to make life and death choices for people they have no relation to:
Euthanasia in Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legislation on euthanasia in Mexico distinguishes between passive and active euthanasia. Since 7 January 2008 the law allows the terminally ill —or closest relatives, if unconscious— to refuse medication or further medical treatment that may extend life (known as passive euthanasia) in Mexico City,[1] in the state of Aguascalientes (since 6 April 2009)[2] and, since 1 September 2009, in the state of Michoacán.[3]
While the exact procedure may vary, the regional laws dealing with living wills —usually called leyes de Voluntad Anticipada— generally require a notary public to witness the instructions left by the patient.
As for active euthanasia, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) have introduced bills to decriminalize it in both the Senate (2007)[4] and the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District (2009),[5] but have failed to change the Article 166 bis 21 of the General Health Law, which still defines euthanasia as mercy homicide.[6] In addition, as of December 2010, 18 out of 31 states have modified their constitution under pressure from the dominant Catholic Church to protect the right to life "from the moment of conception until natural death",[7] effectively discarding any initiative contemplating active euthanasia within state borders.
In general, only societies which are socially liberal and mostly irreligious are the ones who have any sort of euthanasia legislation.
There is a strong correlation between lack of religious belief and compassion for others especially in cases of terminal illnesses:
Voluntary euthanasia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As of 2009, some forms of voluntary euthanasia are legal in Belgium,[1] Luxembourg,[2] the Netherlands,[1] Switzerland,[1] and the US states of Oregon[3] and Washington.[4]
You have got to be kidding me!!! Firstly, you are making things very vague and stem cell research or even cloning is not banned! However, when we come to a point where we involve humans, than there are very clear ethical issues involved!! It's as I said before, human rights should be respected above all else, and you can also join that line! It is the topic of cloning humans, or pulling cells out of human embryos which are a clear ethical issue! I don't have to be religious or even a theist to oppose human-animal hybrids!!! :shocked:
And with that, clearly, we should not only be vary of theist fanatics but also unethical atheist fanatics!! Your assertions of human-animal hybrids are absurd man! Straight out of some Dr. Evil movie!
Maybe you don't read the news. Stem cell research was banned until last year in the US:
Stem Cell Research Ban Overturned By U.S. Appeals Court
Human cloning is banned as well:
On December 13, 2001, the United Nations General Assembly began elaborating an international convention against the reproductive cloning of humans. A broad coalition of States, including Spain, Italy, the Philippines, the United States, Costa Rica and the Holy See sought to extend the debate to ban all forms of human cloning, noting that, in their view, therapeutic human cloning violates human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention to ban all forms of human cloning. Unable to reach a consensus on a binding convention, in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning calling for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was adopted.[14]
Remember, human cloning does not necessarily have to lead to cloned babies, as "Therapeutic cloning" is only for the purposes of organ transplants.
Besides, you're the one who was vague with statements like
"There's a line where those beliefs should not cross over and harm other people or encroach on other people's lives. So the examples you gave, the religious bigots, the atheist bigots, anyone who encroaches upon other people's rights clearly does not deserve to have his own rights respected."
This is the height of simplicity and vagueness. I was merely providing specific examples to demonstrate how you cannot just allow people to have whatever beliefs they want beyond a point, because their beliefs shape society and will eventually, affect you personally as well.
As for stem cell research, cloning etc, I don't see *
what* the ethical issues are. The problem with theists is that they like to hide behind "ethics" without specifying what exactly they mean by that word, because if they were to explain their reasoning, it would become clear that what they were talking about was "morality", which is quite separate from ethics. Morality is not universal, and it springs from the specific theistic beliefs that people hold, hence to hide behind "ethics", which is a more acceptable word is a cop-out, nothing more.
What if a doctor told you that stem cell research could save the lives of millions of human beings who die every year due to lack of organ donors? Same applies to human-animal hybrids, which could provide an abundant source for organ and blood transplants. This is a very real problem that results in avoidable deaths worldwide, so what could be "ethically wrong" in preventing it?
Did you ever stop to think why only cloning and stem cell research has suffered so much backlash whereas the development of the A-bomb or all kinds of advanced weapons research never gets the same kind of attention? I can't for the life of me see how one can oppose research that will save the lives of millions in need while condoning research that will kill millions.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that the dominant religions of the world never prohibited killing other tribes of human beings, but issued clear judgements for how their followers should lead their own lives?
. Watch the entire video . He is hopelessly using straw mans and ad hominems and logical fallacies to make him right.
