Is it bad to believe in god?

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Is it bad to believe in God? simple question yes or no.

We are talking about having faith in God, not following a set of rules and scriptures.

Is it a bad thing?.


peace.

[cosmictraveler]

It depends upon if you just want to believe in it or try to evangalize about it to everyone. Since I do not believe in it I don't worry about it much at all.

[Carcano]

We are talking about having faith in God.
Is it a bad thing?

Faith itself is a bad thing.

Would you choose believing over knowing?

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Faith itself is a bad thing.

Would you choose believing over knowing?

Depends on the outcome, Would you want to be told the exact day and hour you were going to die?.


peace.

[S.A.M.]

No, you can get off on the basis of mental disease or defect.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

It depends upon if you just want to believe in it or try to evangalize about it to everyone. Since I do not believe in it I don't worry about it much at all.

I mean simply just believing.

peace.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Faith itself is a bad thing.



So if I have faith in my daughter achieving well in life thats a bad thing?. Or having faith in my partner not cheating on me?. you don't trust people then not even loved ones?


peace.

[sisyphus__]

It is N-O-T a bad thing, to believe in god.
That is very rediculious.
My sister believes in God.

That is not a bad thing.
If anyone told you it was a bad thing they are an idiot.
The only thing bad is long term and shit. And how they do. But simple someone believing in God is N-O-T a bad thing at all.

*no shit*

[Carcano]

You don't trust people then, not even loved ones?

Trust (Faith) and Belief have different meanings here.

Trust is based on 'knowing' the past and investing in the future based on that knowledge.

[Carcano]

Would you want to be told the exact day and hour you were going to die?.

Not only would I want to know...I would like to arrange the exact date.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Trust and Belief have different meanings here.

Trust is based on 'knowing' the past and investing in the future based on that knowledge.

Not true in every scenario. Take this for example, you are with your partner for 5 years, you have no proof/evidence that she has stayed faithfull you trust and have faith in her that she has not cheated on you, despite the fact that you have no solid hard evidence to back up that claim.


Taking somebodies word for something is based on assumptions not HARD evidence, elements of Faith have to come into play and you cannot deny this fact.

peace.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Not only would I want to know...I would like to arrange the exact date.

Would that not take the flavour out of life for you?. you wake up one week from the day of death and think "damn, 7 days left"


Personaly that would suck in my opinion.

peace.

[Carcano]

Take this for example, you are with your partner for 5 years, you have no proof/evidence that she has stayed faithful you trust and have faith in her that she has not cheated on you, despite the fact that you have no solid hard evidence to back up that claim.

If your trust is well-founded it will be based on knowing your partners mind, based on past experience. If he/she has always been honest and committed in all other areas you have a basis for trust.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

If your trust is well-founded it will be based on knowing your partners mind, based on past experience. If he/she has always been honest and committed in all other areas you have a basis for trust.


How do you know they are honest? where is your hard evidence for this?.

peace.

[Carcano]

Personlly that would suck in my opinion.
Have you noticed that the happiest people are the least concerned at the end of their life?

One can only mourn an unhappy life.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Have you noticed that the happiest people are the least concerned at the end of their life?

One can only mourn an unhappy life.


I agree, people who accept deth and do not fear it re happy, but I would still prefer not to know. For example say you are going to die next week and somebody says "hey lets go out next week" you would reply "sory im dead then how about next time?" Kind of puts a downer on things.


peace.

[Carcano]

How do you know they are honest? where is your hard evidence for this?
Past experience.

Its not perfect mind you.

Donald Trump says in one of his books...hire the best people, and dont trust them! :bugeye:

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Past experience.

Its not perfect mind you.

Donald Trump says in one of his books...hire the best people, and dont trust them! :bugeye:


yes but past experience is still not evidence to be honest, it is still a faith based trusting assumption based on what you assume.

For something to be non faith based it would require evidence right?, if she was good at covering up her tracks she could have cheated on you right from the start and kept it hidden, while you happily trust she has been faithful due to you never actualy knowing she cheated.


It is faith.

peace.

[Carcano]

yes but past experience is still not evidence to be honest, it is still a faith based trusting assumption based on what you assume.
Not on what you have assumed...what you have observed.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

But you can never observe a persons thoughts, so when a loved one tells you what they are thinking and you trust them, it is faith based.

Also there is no proof that they have stayed faithful even if you have not observed it in the past, they may just be good at covering up trcks, yet you trust they are truthfull.

Say your partner goes on a world tour for 5 years and comes back and says, I was faithfull, if you believe them that is trust and faith.



peace.

[Orleander]

I'm an atheist and I don't think its bad. If it makes you happy and it doesn't hurt anyone else, go for it.
The good things I do are in large part due to my christian upbringing.

[Carcano]

But you can never observe a persons thoughts, so when a loved one tells you what they are thinking and you trust them, it is faith based.
You can observe a person's thought to some extent. What is better however is to observe actions.

For example, there were many occasions in my twenties when I was less than trustworthy, and it showed up in my actions very clearly. A few people lost faith in me...and for good reason.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

You can observe a person's thought to some extent. What is better however is to observe actions.

For example, there were many occasions in my twenties when I was less than trustworthy, and it showed up in my actions very clearly. A few people lost faith in me...and for good reason.

I understand what your saying, but still you cannot deny that taking somebodies word for something is faith based as you do not have hard evidence to base it on.

You cannot observe another persons hidden thoughts. thats why lying works and some people do it very well.

peace.

[Carcano]

but you cannot deny that taking somebodies word for something is faith based as you do not have hard evidence to base it on.
I cant deny it no.

Taking somebody's word without knowing their past is FAITH.

TRUST however...has the opposite meaning.

[Michael]

If it's just YES or NO then I pick YES it's bad to believe in Xenu .. Oh, I mean Allah or FSM ... whichever, they're all the same. I fail to see how a strong belief in Xenu or Allah or FSM is going to benefit overall society at our stage of development. That said, some places, perhaps Pakistan or India, Arabia, Iraq ... yeah, they're probably better off worshiping Xenu or FSM etc...

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I cant deny it no.

Taking somebody's word without knowing their past is FAITH.

TRUST however...has the opposite meaning.

But just because you know things about a persons past does not mean you know for a fact that they are truthfull. It is still faith based unless you have actual evidence.

Unless you have evidence for something it is not rational.

peace.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

If it's just YES or NO then I pick YES it's bad to believe in Xenu .. Oh, I mean Allah or FSM ... whichever, they're all the same. I fail to see how a strong belief in Xenu or Allah or FSM is going to benefit overall society at our stage of development. That said, some places, perhaps Pakistan or India, Arabia, Iraq ... yeah, they're probably better off worshiping Xenu or FSM etc...

Xenu is not a god as far as I know.

if I like the smell of flowers it's not going to benifit society but that does not make it bad does it?.


peace.

[Michael]

Xenu is a God for some people. People do worship Him.

Actually, beleif in an Alien makes a little more sense than beleif in FSM or Allah. I mean, if you think about it, that's why StarWars and StarTrec are popular believable shows.

So, in a sense you are asking me: Is it good that we continue to teach children to believe in Xenu? Well, my personal opinion is that some societies have reached a stage (maybe) where it is no longer necessary to teach people to believe in Xenu - and actually, teaching people to believe in Xenu may actually stunt further development. So, I'm speaking about Japan, China, Australia, Europe, USA, Canada, England... BUT, in places like Pakistan, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, KSA, well, there it's probably important that they are taught to believe in Xenu.

Now, all of that said, I think the West and Japanese have the right balance when the religion is open-minded. For example, some liberal minded Christians religion teach that Buddhism is also a valid beleif system. And of course Buddhists can easily accommodate other beliefs (poly and monotheistic). So a society were people have some access to superstition seems to be better than one that squashes it completely. If the superstition is open minded and liberal then sure, it's probably OK for some people.

I'm gong to raise my child (when I have one) to give offerings to the aboriginal Gods... at least while they're still young.

[Michael]

Smelling flowers does benefit society. Perhaps even instilling an appreciation for nature, which is important - at least to me.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Xenu is a God for some people. People who worship Him. So, in a sense you are asking me: Is it good that we continue to teach children to believe in Xenu? Well, my personal opinion is that some societies have reached a stage (maybe) where it is no longer necessary to teach people to believe in Xenu - and actually, teaching people to believe in Xenu may actually stunt further development. So, I'm speaking about Japan, China, Australia, Europe, USA, Canada, England... BUT, in places like Pakistan, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, KSA, well, there it's probably important that they are taught to believe in Xenu.

Now, all of that said, I think the West and Japanese have the right balance when the religion is open-minded. For example, some liberal minded Christians religion teach that Buddhism is also a valid beleif system. And of course Buddhists can easily accommodate other beliefs (poly and monotheistic). So a society were people have some access to superstition seems to be better than one that squashes it completely. If the superstition is open minded and liberal then sure, it's probably OK for some people.

I'm gong to raise my child (when I have one) to give offerings to the aboriginal Gods... at least while they're still young.


I agree with that, it's a fair statement. But why give offerings to aboriginal gods? lol. Im not very versed in aboriginal traditions, but do they believe in the universe as some sort of dream world or something?. long the lines of some sort of universal consciousness?.


peace.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Smelling flowers does benefit society. Perhaps even instilling an appreciation for nature, which is important - at least to me.

thats kind of a long shot isnt it?. I might like to pick the flower before smelling it :D.

But no I dont pick flowers I prefer to look at them and let them live to be honest.


peace.

[Carcano]

But just because you know things about a persons past does not mean you know for a fact that they are truthful. It is still faith based unless you have actual evidence.

Again, past experience is evidence.

Arent you in martial arts? Then you know the hierarchy of students and teachers is based on the evidence of experience. A student who proves himself to be untrustworthy might never become a teacher no matter how proficient he becomes.

[Michael]

yeah, you're right, maybe I should have said, planting flowers around the city is a good thing. :) as for the aboriginal Gods. I live in AU and I want my child to appreciate their culture. At a young age it's important that they open their mind and fly around :) I'll also teach my children to believe in Santa :D BUT, as they grow older, they'll soon realize Santa was just for kids and Aboriginal Dream Worlds are fantastic places of the mind ....

Probably we'll go to lots of religous festivals and eat treats from all over the religous landscape... Thai Buddhism, Japanese Shinto, Indian Hindu.... YUM!!!


Maybe, some day, when they are lost and sad, they'll return to a cave in the Australian country side and think about Dream Gods.... and work out their problem and realize their own dreams. THAT'S the strength in superstition. BUT, unfortunately, this has all been lost in the quest to control people. Heck, even SAM/SAM brother is scared of thinking unthinkable thoughts - there's no f*cking way I want THAT for my kids. If anything, exactly the opposite!!!

Make sense?
Michael

[maxpayne]

The bad is not believing in God because if i didn't i would kill myself from long time ago i think that believing in God is the best thing i can do for now and forever

[Michael]

Maybe Buddhist meditation would be even better?

Anyway, my post is referring to a generalization in society.

[Medicine*Woman]

Depends on the outcome, Would you want to be told the exact day and hour you were going to die?.
*************
M*W: If we knew exactly when we were going to die, we might just start to live more fully and prepare for the end.

[Medicine*Woman]

Is it bad to believe in God? simple question yes or no.

We are talking about having faith in God, not following a set of rules and scriptures.

Is it a bad thing?.
*************
M*W: Believing in a god gives a sense of false hope. It also encourages a sense of well-being no matter what direction our lives may take. Believing in a higher power gives us an excuse not to take control of our lives or to make our own lives better. It encourages us to wait for god to fix the things we think we are incapable of fixing ourselves. I just can't see where belief in god (any god) is better than believing in ourselves.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

MW-I take it you have never heard of the courage given by the knowledge that your "big brother" is right there, waiting to help you? Insert God for Big brother and you have a comparison. What is wrong with hope? How does having false hope hurt anyone? Most of the religions I am familiar with suggest that God places worldly ways for us to find help. Thus pushing us toward self-reliance. It DOES allow us to accept things which cannot be changed, or would you suggest that we can fix any situation we get ourselves into? Expecting this I offer a diagnosis of cancer, non-operable. The kind of thing that there is a limited amount you can do, but otherwise, death is a comin. How would you propose that a person, through self-reliance, could overcome this? I agree, it could be accepted, but I would suggest that the person looking forward to "heaven" will have an easier time facing death than the person looking forward to ???.

[Medicine*Woman]

MW-I take it you have never heard of the courage given by the knowledge that your "big brother" is right there, waiting to help you? Insert God for Big brother and you have a comparison. What is wrong with hope? How does having false hope hurt anyone? Most of the religions I am familiar with suggest that God places worldly ways for us to find help. Thus pushing us toward self-reliance. It DOES allow us to accept things which cannot be changed, or would you suggest that we can fix any situation we get ourselves into? Expecting this I offer a diagnosis of cancer, non-operable. The kind of thing that there is a limited amount you can do, but otherwise, death is a comin. How would you propose that a person, through self-reliance, could overcome this? I agree, it could be accepted, but I would suggest that the person looking forward to "heaven" will have an easier time facing death than the person looking forward to ???.
*************
M*W: I personally don't believe "big brother" is waiting or watching me, and I certainly have never solicited his help, except when I was a christian. Then I expected god to be there and answer all my frivilous prayers and take care of my loved ones. I found out all too soon that it was going to be me who take of my loved ones and there was no god in sight. Even as a christian, I saw other christians who were so phony. That's what disillusioned me about christianity. I still believe that a belief in a god is a cop-out for those who choose to live in denial.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

MW-I would suggest that you are just disillusioned. That you based your faith in people and not God was disheartening, I'm sure. Humans are not God, not even near to God. We as believers must place our faith inGod, and not in man. Man will always let you down. You know what else I believe, MW? You don't get the choice. Like a child, tugging against his parent. You tug against God with all your strength. Yet, God is there, holding your hand firmly. God will protect you in spite of yourself, MW. Once saved, always saved. Like it or not, I think we'll be hanging out in Heaven. Will you feel silly, then? I hope not. I hope you feel loved. I hope and pray that you will find happiness with God, and that you will return to your faith.

[Medicine*Woman]

MW-I would suggest that you are just disillusioned. That you based your faith in people and not God was disheartening, I'm sure. Humans are not God, not even near to God. We as believers must place our faith in God, and not in man. Man will always let you down. You know what else I believe, MW? You don't get the choice. Like a child, tugging against his parent. You tug against God with all your strength. Yet, God is there, holding your hand firmly. God will protect you in spite of yourself, MW. Once saved, always saved. Like it or not, I think we'll be hanging out in Heaven. Will you feel silly, then? I hope not. I hope you feel loved. I hope and pray that you will find happiness with God, and that you will return to your faith.
*************
M*W: I had faith in god and in Jesus and the whole idea of the trinity. I understood it, I taught it for a number of years to teenagers and adults. I lived it. To be honest, I've never had that kind of faith in man (figuratively, speaking). I truly believed I was saved and, in fact, I still believe I am saved, strange as that may sound, the only difference in my salvation is what I was saved from--religion. If such a thing happens that I end up in a place called 'heaven,' then I'll deal with it. In the meantime, I just don't plan to go there, because I cannot fathom such a place. Actually, I'm a very happy person who has lived long and loved well. I choose to find happiness in this lifetime and, so far, I have. The mainstay of my 'faith' is in my family. They are the god I believe in.

[CheskiChips]

*************
M*W: I had faith in god and in Jesus and the whole idea of the trinity. I understood it, I taught it for a number of years to teenagers and adults. I lived it. To be honest, I've never had that kind of faith in man (figuratively, speaking). I truly believed I was saved and, in fact, I still believe I am saved, strange as that may sound, the only difference in my salvation is what I was saved from--religion. If such a thing happens that I end up in a place called 'heaven,' then I'll deal with it. In the meantime, I just don't plan to go there, because I cannot fathom such a place. Actually, I'm a very happy person who has lived long and loved well. I choose to find happiness in this lifetime and, so far, I have. The mainstay of my 'faith' is in my family. They are the god I believe in.

Oh...so all of your anger is actually shame?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Is it bad to believe in God? simple question yes or no.

Yes. No good has ever come of it.

[Medicine*Woman]

Oh...so all of your anger is actually shame?
*************
M*W: Shame? Where do you deduce that? Perhaps you think I should feel shame, but I don't have any reason to feel shame and I'm not angry in the least. I'm relieved of the facade that is christianity.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

MW-Then why do you point to man's failings as evidence that christianity is "a facade". I was raised baptist, myself, and the ins and outs of being baptism seemed like a sham to me. I came to understand, however, that christianity is not the ritual religion would have us believe. Christianity is not only faith in God, but a personal relationship with Him.

[Medicine*Woman]

MW-Then why do you point to man's failings as evidence that christianity is "a facade". I was raised baptist, myself, and the ins and outs of being baptism seemed like a sham to me. I came to understand, however, that christianity is not the ritual religion would have us believe. Christianity is not only faith in God, but a personal relationship with Him.
*************
M*W: I have never referred to "man's failings" that I can recall. We're human. I don't expect perfection. I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here. Please remind me.

Roman catholicism has its rituals, but so do Protestant churches. It's all ritual. That's what makes it keep going. It's a familiar comfort zone. Why do Protestant churches always repeat "The Lord's Prayer?" Why do they have an offering? Why do they always ask you to come up and accept Jesus as savior? Why do they have hymns? It's all ritual. That's what gives us humans a comfort zone. Look at our lives outside of religion. Monday Night Football, the evening news, dinner time, mowing the grass, watering plants, feeding the pets, bedtime, writing on SciForums. It's all ritual. Perhaps humans can't live without ritual. Perhaps that's what keeps us civilized. Even so, I don't find a need for the ritual of religion.

[audible]

Is it bad to believe in God? simple question yes or no.
We are talking about having faith in God, not following a set of rules and scriptures.
Is it a bad thing?.
peace.As long as that belief, is not a delusional hallucinogenic type belief, that involves one on one seeing and talking to an imaginary creature, as then it becomes dangerous in the extreme.

[nietzschefan]

It's only bad to force your beliefs on someone else. Particularly based on lies.

[Medicine*Woman]

It's only bad to force your beliefs on someone else. Particularly based on lies.
**************
M*W: You said it! "Particularly based on lies." Unfortunately, all religions are based on lies.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

God will always let you down.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

God always answers prayer. The answer can be 'no'.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You believe god answers prayers. Someone else believes the rain god does. Another believes it's their lucky rabbit's foot.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

By your own statement, God doesn't always let you down. Your lack of belief lets you down. The person who believes it's their lucky rabbit's foot probably does not feel that their lucky rabbit's foot lets them down.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

By your own statement, God doesn't always let you down. Your lack of belief lets you down. The person who believes it's their lucky rabbit's foot probably does not feel that their lucky rabbit's foot lets them down.

The word YOU in the above refers to me. The word YOU in my post refers to you. I never said god lets me down. I said god lets YOU down.
How people feel doesn't affect truth, only their perception.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

The word YOU in the above refers to me. The word YOU in my post refers to you. I never said god lets me down. I said god lets YOU down.
How people feel doesn't affect truth, only their perception.

God has not let me down. I was assuming you were making one of your one-lined witticisms, suggesting that the you that you were talking about was everyone. I thought this because of your use of the word always preceding it. I knew that this statement was false, thus I sought to correct you.

Do you have any examples of objective truths you would like to share. I think we can agree that there are many to be found in mathematics. I would suggest that whatever one perceives, that is the truth to that one. Thus, feelings absolutely influence truth. If you mean something else, try to be a bit more precise.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I say you to mean you not everyone. You doesn't mean everyone, it means you.
You don't know the statement is false. Anything you don't know exists has to be a letdown. You can have faith but you don't know any god exists or what it's like if it does exist or what it wants.
Perception isn't truth. "Truth" TO any 1 person isn't truth. Color blind people see 2 cats as red while I see 1 as yellow & 1 as orange. 1 or both are wrong. They're not both true.

[Norsefire]

It's neither bad nor good to believe in God. It's what you do with those beliefs that is important.

[Vkothii]

But you can never observe a persons thoughts, so when a loved one tells you what they are thinking and you trust them, it is faith based.

Also there is no proof that they have stayed faithful even if you have not observed it in the past, they may just be good at covering up trcks, yet you trust they are truthfull.
I would surmise, based on your post, that for you, being a "believer in God" means you can trust something, since you so obviously have no faith in your own ability to read people or understand them.

[JDawg]

To answer the OP,

I don't believe that a belief in a god is an inherently bad thing. After all, there are plenty of different religions out there that are a lot less vile than the Abrahamic ones. Still, I think it would be best not to believe. I think religion generally tethers us to outdated dogmas, and unfortunately, you can't really separate the dogma from the faith. Religion also makes us less accepting as a society, and often the religious groups are the last ones left fighting against positive societal change.

So no, faith is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a very slippery slope.

[SnakeLord]

God always answers prayer. The answer can be 'no'.

Amusingly perhaps, but so does my cup of tea. Unfortunately that is the problem with the old yes/no/later scenario - it counts for everything, from gods to baked beans. Seriously, ask your tin of baked beans for something. The answer will be yes/no or later.

I think we should have a contest. You ask god for stuff, I'll ask my cup of tea for stuff. Work out the success rate and we'll meet back here in a week.

[superluminal]

It is a bad thing because believing in anything (of consequence that is) without the slightest shred of reasonable evidence is bad. Any idea attributed to a god cannot be refuted, so can therefore be used as a justification for anything you want. There is zero accountability for god. Don't eat this, don't wear that, kill these people... Why? Because god said so. Bullshit.

[Norsefire]

To answer the OP,

I don't believe that a belief in a god is an inherently bad thing. After all, there are plenty of different religions out there that are a lot less vile than the Abrahamic ones. Still, I think it would be best not to believe. I think religion generally tethers us to outdated dogmas, and unfortunately, you can't really separate the dogma from the faith. Religion also makes us less accepting as a society, and often the religious groups are the last ones left fighting against positive societal change. Pure opinion; what is "positive" and "negative"? How accepting should we be? Where do we draw limits? Religion is a useful guideline for social structure

It is a bad thing because believing in anything (of consequence that is) without the slightest shred of reasonable evidence is bad. Why?
Any idea attributed to a god cannot be refuted, so can therefore be used as a justification for anything you want. There is zero accountability for god. Don't eat this, don't wear that, kill these people... Why? Because god said so. Bullshit.
And therein lies the value of religion: social structure and order. However, that is not necessarily always the case, of course.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Pure opinion; what is "positive" and "negative"? How accepting should we be? Where do we draw limits? Religion is a useful guideline for social structure

Why?

And therein lies the value of religion: social structure and order. However, that is not necessarily always the case, of course.

Totally absurd.

[Norsefire]

Totally correct; religion provides a useful social boundary. Where else can we derive order?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Religion is disorder. Pure & simple.

[superluminal]

It is a bad thing because believing in anything (of consequence that is) without the slightest shred of reasonable evidence is bad.
Why?

Why?
Because anything and everything can become the basis for a worldview or paradigm no matter who it hurts:

- Jews are bad (Nazis)
- People who don't believe as us are bad (xians, muslims, etc)
- People with light hair are better (Nazis again)
- Black people are inferior (Any bigoted "group" you care to name, including those already listed)

Can you support any of these claims with solid evidence that demonstrates their truth? No? Ok then.


And therein lies the value of religion: social structure and order. However, that is not necessarily always the case, of course.
This makes no sense. You agree but disagree?

Look, no one alive has ever seen god come down and deliver some edicts on when it's OK to eat fish. All you or anyone has is the testimony of others. You decide to believe them, for personal reasons. Nothing more.

You don't have faith in god. No one does, because you have never spoken directly to god. You have faith in the words of other humans. That's all. Because you're afraid and it gives you comfort.

You put your trust in the claims of other people because, like most humans, you have a built-in instinct to submit to the will of a dominant member of society.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You put your trust in the claims of other people because, like most humans, you have a built-in instinct to submit to the will of a dominant member of society.

Great to see someone in addition to me saying this.

[QUOTE=superluminal;2016956]

You don't have faith in god. No one does, because you have never spoken directly to god. You have faith in the words of other humans. That's all. Because you're afraid and it gives you comfort. QUOTE]

WOW! I've thought of this but never phrased it half as well.

[Norsefire]

Why?
Because anything and everything can become the basis for a worldview or paradigm no matter who it hurts:

- Jews are bad (Nazis)
- People who don't believe as us are bad (xians, muslims, etc)
- People with light hair are better (Nazis again)
- Black people are inferior (Any bigoted "group" you care to name, including those already listed)

Can you support any of these claims with solid evidence that demonstrates their truth? No? Ok then. Those are philosophical claims, they do not require evidence. I agree, though, that religion can be easily misused, but again, that isn't always the case.


This makes no sense. You agree but disagree?

Look, no one alive has ever seen god come down and deliver some edicts on when it's OK to eat fish. All you or anyone has is the testimony of others. You decide to believe them, for personal reasons. Nothing more.

You don't have faith in god. No one does, because you have never spoken directly to god. You have faith in the words of other humans. That's all. Because you're afraid and it gives you comfort.

You put your trust in the claims of other people because, like most humans, you have a built-in instinct to submit to the will of a dominant member of society. You're quite correct, but I'd like to think that the people speaking of God have reason to, and originally people did indeed observe or undestand something that led to their conclusion of God.

And as I said, religion provides social order.

[(Q)]

And as I said, religion provides social order.

What you repeat is meaningless unless you can demonstrate, then you'll no longer have to repeat yourself. *hint hint*

[Norsefire]

What you repeat is meaningless unless you can demonstrate, then you'll no longer have to repeat yourself. *hint hint*

It's already been demonstrated; religion provides certain codes of behavior and guidelines for lifestyle. Society needs accepted norms and religion provides them.

[(Q)]

It's already been demonstrated; religion provides certain codes of behavior and guidelines for lifestyle. Society needs accepted norms and religion provides them.

Once again, repeating the same nonsense over and over... :rolleyes:

[Norsefire]

Once again, repeating the same nonsense over and over...

Please show me how a society can operate without common ground among the people.

[(Q)]

Please show me how a society can operate without common ground among the people.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/images1/opress2.jpg

[Norsefire]

And that's relevant how...?

[(Q)]

And that's relevant how...?

Brain not working... must fight to turn it on... Islam winning... damn!

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Those are philosophical claims, they do not require evidence. I agree, though, that religion can be easily misused, but again, that isn't always the case.
QUOTE]

Religion is usually misused.

[QUOTE=Norsefire;2016985]
You're quite correct, but I'd like to think that the people speaking of God have reason to, and originally people did indeed observe or undestand something that led to their conclusion of God.

And as I said, religion provides social order.

I'd like to think, I can't believe, I'd hate it if, I know it in my heart, I can't accept, I can't get my head around it

[Norsefire]

Brain not working... must fight to turn it on... Islam winning... damn! Opression is subjective, and indeed in any society with accepted norms (which is all of them), there will always be "opression". "Tolerance" and society don't go hand in hand.

Those are philosophical claims, they do not require evidence. I agree, though, that religion can be easily misused, but again, that isn't always the case.


Religion is usually misused. No, I'd say that whenever religion is misused, it tends to be in a dramatic, loud way and therefore we focus more on those times; however, I don't think religion is "usually misused".

[superluminal]

It's already been demonstrated; religion provides certain codes of behavior and guidelines for lifestyle. Society needs accepted norms and religion provides them.
Almost right. Society needs accepted norms and religions provide bad ones, like this:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/images1/opress2.jpg

What is so terrifying about using evidence based reason to guide a society? So far, religion seems to be a horrible detriment to society because it forces arbitrary "norms" on people.

What is "normal" or good about draping sackcloth over your women? Or not eating certain kinds of meat? On certain days? Or using coersion to convert masses of people to your way of thinking? (no, there are no atheist missionaries, despite what Sam, et al will try to argue).

[Norsefire]

Almost right. Society needs accepted norms and religions provide bad ones In your opinion

What is so terrifying about using evidence based reason to guide a society? So far, religion seems to be a horrible detriment to society because it forces arbitrary "norms" on people. Guiding society requires philosophy, and you cannot use evidence for philosophy.

What is "normal" or good about draping sackcloth over your women? Or not eating certain kinds of meat? On certain days? Or using coersion to convert masses of people to your way of thinking? (no, there are no atheist missionaries, despite what Sam, et al will try to argue).
They provide limits. Limits are required for society.

[Jessabeans]

i would like to know when I would die. Then, i may change my priorities. If I would die in two years, maybe I would quit college and live with the man I'm going to marry NOW, until waiting until I'm closer to death. One example. Also, it is hard for me to "know" anything. Most things are just theories and possibilities to me, some less likely than others. For me to see scientific evidence as "proof" I'd have to put some faith into the flawlessness of that evidence. And God, well I think if there is a God he may just be too much for the human mind to understand, thus the lack of hard evidence that many scientists cite to be "proof" that God doesn't exist. After all, can all animals see the same colors we see? Does that mean. . .let's say, the color blue. . .doesn't exist? Do you think gerbils will ever understand the reason that they are breathing? I'm just saying, just because humans don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't there.
But, a lot of scientists continuously seek answers to things humans don't currently understand. Even so, are scientists key to all the answers?

I don't mean any hate, just things running through my mind

[(Q)]

Even so, are scientists key to all the answers?

Only answers that will have some use or value.

[Norsefire]

Q, so philosophy is useless and has no value?

[superluminal]

In your opinion
Of course.

Guiding society requires philosophy, and you cannot use evidence for philosophy.
Really? Every professional scientist I've ever heard of has a Ph.D (That would be a Doctor of Philosophy).

Scientists seem to be fond of evidence to support their philosophy...

They provide limits. Limits are required for society.
Arbitrary ones. Based on...? Your say-so? Mine? Some speaker-for-god?

Sounds like a pretty shitty way to determine the limits for a whole society. As we can see all around us...

[superluminal]

Q, so philosophy is useless and has no value?
A philosophy is just a way of looking at the world. Some are useless, others have great value.

[(Q)]

Q, so philosophy is useless and has no value?

Very little value, if any. Philosophy is just another word for bullshit.

[superluminal]

Philosophy for the sake of philosophy is useless bullshit. Like most of the "philosophical" discussions around here.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

NO NO NO!
Bullshit is another word for philosophy.
Wait! Which came 1st, bullshit or philosophy?

[JDawg]

I think we should have a contest. You ask god for stuff, I'll ask my cup of tea for stuff. Work out the success rate and we'll meet back here in a week.

YES! Awesome. Awesome!

I'm in. Let's do this.

[Norsefire]

Really? Every professional scientist I've ever heard of has a Ph.D (That would be a Doctor of Philosophy).

Scientists seem to be fond of evidence to support their philosophy... Science doesn't deal with society or philosophy, as in, to determine what we should or shouldn't do, or what is right or wrong, etc.
Arbitrary ones. Based on...? Your say-so? Mine? Some speaker-for-god?

Sounds like a pretty shitty way to determine the limits for a whole society. As we can see all around us...
All limits we set would be arbitrary, and we need limits.
A philosophy is just a way of looking at the world. Some are useless, others have great value. All have great value. Philosophy is important to social function.

Very little value, if any. Philosophy is just another word for bullshit. See above.

Philosophy and science are both valuable, but they do different things. Science is valuable for understanding the natural world and using that knowledge to our benefit. Philosophy is valuable for topics such as social structure, roles, morality, etc

[(Q)]

Science doesn't deal with society or philosophy, as in, to determine what we should or shouldn't do, or what is right or wrong, etc.

Who gives a flying fuck about philosophy? And yes, science can determine what is right or wrong. We can create a hypothesis based on observation and run tests.

All limits we set would be arbitrary, and we need limits.
All have great value. Philosophy is important to social function.

Gibberish.

Philosophy is valuable for topics such as social structure, roles, morality, etc

Whose philosophy? Yours?

[JDawg]

All limits we set would be arbitrary, and we need limits.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an arbitrary limit. All limits we need are already in place. It is society's nature to move towards the liberal, and that's how it should be. The religious are the last ones clinging to old mores.

[Norsefire]

Who gives a flying fuck about philosophy? And yes, science can determine what is right or wrong. We can create a hypothesis based on observation and run tests. You can't have a society based on science. It doesn't work. How do we determine right from wrong, or culture, or standards? Only philosophy can do this.
Whose philosophy? Yours? One we can all agree upon, and by doing so, we become a single society.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an arbitrary limit. All limits we need are already in place. It is society's nature to move towards the liberal, and that's how it should be. The religious are the last ones clinging to old mores.
Culture is an arbitrary limit, what is "right" and "wrong", what is tolerated, what is taboo, etc, and this depends on philosophy. "Liberal" societies aren't societies, because the people aren't on common cultural ground.

[JDawg]

Culture is an arbitrary limit, what is "right" and "wrong", what is tolerated, what is taboo, etc, and this depends on philosophy. "Liberal" societies aren't societies, because the people aren't on common cultural ground.

Culture is most certainly not an arbitrary limit. All you have to do is pick up a history book, then look around. All societies change what they view as right and wrong. And how would a liberal society not be a society? In what way are they not on common ground?

It's fairly obvious you don't know what you're talking about here.

[Norsefire]

Culture is most certainly not an arbitrary limit. All you have to do is pick up a history book, then look around. All societies change what they view as right and wrong. And how would a liberal society not be a society? In what way are they not on common ground?

Of course culture evolves, but it's put in place by Humans. It is subjective, not objective.

A liberal society is an oxymoron; if "liberal" means tolerating, that is. A society has one way, one common ground among the people; one morality, etc, that's a society. That is the social interaction and structure of the people. In a "liberal" society, there would be many different ones and therefore no real single society. Society is intolerant by nature, but that isn't a bad thing.

[(Q)]

You can't have a society based on science. It doesn't work.

From the perspective of an indoctrinated Muslim, I would have to agree. Islam has most certainly produced a perfect society, as we can all see from how prosperous oil rich Arabs have turned the ME around to be the paradise we would all love to be a part.

How do we determine right from wrong, or culture, or standards?

You would need years of education and the removal of your religious indoctrination to understand such concepts. But rest assured, calling for heads on lances isn't within such parameters.

[Norsefire]

From the perspective of an indoctrinated Muslim, I would have to agree. Islam has most certainly produced a perfect society, as we can all see from how prosperous oil rich Arabs have turned the ME around to be the paradise we would all love to be a part. There is no "perfect" society because there is no way of measuring how good a society is.

You would need years of education and the removal of your religious indoctrination to understand such concepts. But rest assured, calling for heads on lances isn't within such parameters.
Actually, merely teaching morality is indoctrination, since morality is subjective. And again, science can't answer right and wrong, you need philosophy for that.

[JDawg]

Of course culture evolves, but it's put in place by Humans. It is subjective, not objective.

A liberal society is an oxymoron; if "liberal" means tolerating, that is. A society has one way, one common ground among the people; one morality, etc, that's a society. That is the social interaction and structure of the people. In a "liberal" society, there would be many different ones and therefore no real single society. Society is intolerant by nature, but that isn't a bad thing.

I didn't say "liberal society", I said "society trends toward the liberal", which means that it always allows what was once taboo to be the norm. 40 years ago, police officers in the southern United States were hosing down black people in the street; today a black man has a damn good chance of winning the presidential election. 40 years ago, schools would show films to students portraying homosexuality as a mental disease; today, two states have made gay marriage legal, while a couple others (I believe) have made civil unions legal.

Therefore, society trends toward the liberal, unless there is a minority intervention, such as by the religious authority or the government. Like today, where in our government there have been attempts made to change the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Or how right-wing politicians seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, taking away a woman's right to choose. It's not the people that fights the change, it's the establishment, the ruling minority.

[Norsefire]

I didn't say "liberal society", I said "society trends toward the liberal", which means that it always allows what was once taboo to be the norm. In other words, tolerance. Is tolerance preferable? Society has no obligation to be tolerant, and society is intolerant by definition. It's a set way of doing things. Anyone not of that set is out of place in that society.

Like today, where in our government there have been attempts made to change the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Er.....that is what it is:bugeye:
Or how right-wing politicians seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, taking away a woman's right to choose. It's not the people that fights the change, it's the establishment, the ruling minority.
Or left wing politicians that seek to destroy morality and destroy social order.

The people establish the establishment.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The rich & powerful establish the establishment, to the detriment of most.

[Norsefire]

The rich & powerful establish the establishment, to the detriment of most.

The powerful are given power by others.

[(Q)]

There is no "perfect" society because there is no way of measuring how good a society is.

That fact that prisons are filled with theists might give some indication, or the fact that most violent domestic crimes are primarily places where religion is dominant.

Actually, merely teaching morality is indoctrination, since morality is subjective.

Doing harm to others is considered subjective? If you look towards the Abrahamic religions, you'll easily find numerous quotes demonstrating cruelty and immorality, even though they were common acts perpetrated by the ignorance of men in medieval times. It is one of the worst types of morality one could teach, learn, or be indoctrinated in modern societies.

And again, science can't answer right and wrong, you need philosophy for that.

The dog barks, but the caravan passes.

[JDawg]

In other words, tolerance. Is tolerance preferable? Society has no obligation to be tolerant, and society is intolerant by definition. It's a set way of doing things. Anyone not of that set is out of place in that society.

Er.....that is what it is:bugeye:

Or left wing politicians that seek to destroy morality and destroy social order.

The people establish the establishment.

1) But how is society intolerant if it is always accepting?

2) No, according to Massachusetts and California, marriage is not only between a man and a woman.

3) C'mon, you know as well as I do that the politicians never really work to forward the ideals of their people. They run on empty promises.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The powerful are given power by others.

They take power from those who can't fight it, think they can't or are blinded by the currently prevalent political beliefs.

[Norsefire]

That fact that prisons are filled with theists might give some indication, or the fact that most violent domestic crimes are primarily places where religion is dominant. It's no surprise, after all prisoners probably are desperate for any sort of "forgiveness"; regardless, it depends on what nation we are speaking of. Prisons in North Korea probably don't have many theists.

Doing harm to others is considered subjective? What do you mean?
If you look towards the Abrahamic religions, you'll easily find numerous quotes demonstrating cruelty and immorality, even though they were common acts perpetrated by the ignorance of men in medieval times. It is one of the worst types of morality one could teach, learn, or be indoctrinated in modern societies. No, what you'll find is violence. As I said, some violence is justified. Most of the "immorality" you find in the Abrahamic texts regards punishment, and it isn't very immoral to punish the evil, no matter how cruel the punishment is.

As I said, morality is subjective and therefore merely teaching anything which is subjective as fact could be considered a form of "indoctrination" or brainwashing. But it's a necessary brainwashing. It doesn't have to be a religious morality, but whatever the morality IS, it has to be socially accepted universally.

And you've failed to show me how science can answer moral questions.

1) But how is society intolerant if it is always accepting? Society isn't always accepting; there's no such thing as 'liberal society', it's a contradiction.

2) No, according to Massachusetts and California, marriage is not only between a man and a woman. According to common sense, the reason there are two genders is because they are supposed to be with each other. If human biology were meant to be homosexual, we wouldn't have two sexes. The sexual organs of man and woman are counterparts.

3) C'mon, you know as well as I do that the politicians never really work to forward the ideals of their people. They run on empty promises. Of course, this is a sad fact. It doesn't have to be that way, though.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Norsefire --- According to common sense, the reason there are two genders is because they are supposed to be with each other.

=====COMMON SENSE????? Supposed by who? People who make suppositions.

Norsefire ---If human biology were meant to be homosexual, we wouldn't have two sexes.

=====Meant by who????? We do have homosexuals & we do have 2 genders.

Norsefire --- The sexual organs of man and woman are counterparts.

=====Nothing could be truer. There's much much more to sex & romance & attraction, etc than sexual organs.

[JDawg]

Society isn't always accepting; there's no such thing as 'liberal society', it's a contradiction.

So are you ever going to cite me an example, or is your game to just say "This is how it is" without ever backing it up? Yeah, that's what I thought.

According to common sense, the reason there are two genders is because they are supposed to be with each other. If human biology were meant to be homosexual, we wouldn't have two sexes. The sexual organs of man and woman are counterparts.

That isn't at question here. But if you want to go down that road, is it possible for homosexuality to occur? Absolutely. So why shut it out? It's a natural occurrence, so why should people in our federal government try to outlaw something that is so natural to so many?

[Norsefire]

So are you ever going to cite me an example, or is your game to just say "This is how it is" without ever backing it up? Yeah, that's what I thought. This isn't about example, it's about logic. How can a society be tolerant? A society, in itself, is a specific formation. In a true society, all of the people are culturally uniform. That is what makes it a society: common ground among the people. A "society" in which the people just ignore each other isn't a society. Interaction and common ground is absolutely necessary. Therefore, if we have a society, that society has its own norms, its own expectations, and its own operation. How does it make sense for it to be "tolerant" of anything else? That isn't what a society does. Society is social; as such, there must be certain common agreements among the people regarding 1) culture 2) morality 3) identity 4) loyalty

If they aren't in agreement on most of those, it isn't a society.

That isn't at question here. But if you want to go down that road, is it possible for homosexuality to occur? Absolutely. So why shut it out? It's a natural occurrence, so why should people in our federal government try to outlaw something that is so natural to so many?
Of course, I'm not saying it is wrong. But it isn't our social norm, and it is out of place. It makes far more sense to develop a specific homosexual society than to destroy our current cultural cohesion.

[JDawg]

This isn't about example, it's about logic. How can a society be tolerant? A society, in itself, is a specific formation. In a true society, all of the people are culturally uniform. That is what makes it a society: common ground among the people. A "society" in which the people just ignore each other isn't a society. Interaction and common ground is absolutely necessary. Therefore, if we have a society, that society has its own norms, its own expectations, and its own operation. How does it make sense for it to be "tolerant" of anything else? That isn't what a society does. Society is social; as such, there must be certain common agreements among the people regarding 1) culture 2) morality 3) identity 4) loyalty

So you just made that whole thing up, did ya?

Explain to me how, then, so many things in Western society that used to be taboo are now culturally acceptable. Please, I beg you, if you rigid societal structure is true, then explain the gaps in your "logic".

And here, I'll give you an example, since you obviously can't find one that backs your ridiculous claim: New York City. No, seriously, go to New York City and explain to me how that society looks anything like the one you just hypothesized.

Of course, I'm not saying it is wrong. But it isn't our social norm, and it is out of place. It makes far more sense to develop a specific homosexual society than to destroy our current cultural cohesion.

See, this is another example of you just having no clue what you're talking about. Homosexuals have already set up their own culture. They have their own clubs, they have their own parades, they even have their own TV network. How does it destroy cultural cohesion for them to be allowed the same social rights as heterosexuals? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

[Norsefire]

So you just made that whole thing up, did ya?

Explain to me how, then, so many things in Western society that used to be taboo are now culturally acceptable. Please, I beg you, if you rigid societal structure is true, then explain the gaps in your "logic". A simple explanation: Western society isn't a society, for the most part. Sure, they are advancing technologically, but culturally they are stagnant and there is little social cohesion. The more tolerant, the less culture. You are losing common cultural ground.

And here, I'll give you an example, since you obviously can't find one that backs your ridiculous claim: New York City. No, seriously, go to New York City and explain to me how that society looks anything like the one you just hypothesized. New York City isn't much of a society.

You are dealing with legalities. Sure, these Western "societies" have alot of diversity and tolerance, but they aren't culturally conform. That's the problem. And cultural conformity is absolutely necessary for social cohesion (society).

See, this is another example of you just having no clue what you're talking about. Homosexuals have already set up their own culture. They have their own clubs, they have their own parades, they even have their own TV network. Exactly, so they can go make their own nation now too.
How does it destroy cultural cohesion for them to be allowed the same social rights as heterosexuals? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
It most certainly does. Our society is, by and large, heterosexual when it comes to the topic of love. Homosexuality is a group that doesn't fit in the extreme.

[JDawg]

A simple explanation: Western society is crumbling. The more tolerant, the less culture. You are losing common cultural ground.

Total cop-out and total lie. Western society is as strong as ever. The only thing threatening it, actually, are the religious folks pressuring the governments to bend to their will despite society being absolutely against it.

New York City isn't much of a society.

You've never been there, have you?

You are dealing with legalities. Sure, these Western "societies" have alot of diversity and tolerance, but they aren't culturally conform. That's the problem. And cultural conformity is absolutely necessary for social cohesion (society).

I'm failing to see a problem...and I don't suppose you would have any examples to point to? No? Is that once again asking for too much?

Exactly, so they can go make their own nation now too.

Ah, bigotry finally rears its ugly head. What took so long? Hey, next time, just save me the trouble and say something retarded right from the start.

It most certainly does. Our society is, by and large, heterosexual when it comes to the topic of love. Homosexuality is a group that doesn't fit in the extreme.

Again, can you point to an area in our society that would fail if homosexuals were given the right to marry? I'm looking at California...nope, no new problems there. Massachusetts...nope, nothing to report there, either. So unless you have an example for me, I gotta go.

[Norsefire]

Total cop-out and total lie. Western society is as strong as ever. The only thing threatening it, actually, are the religious folks pressuring the governments to bend to their will despite society being absolutely against it. First off, modern Western "society" is based on religion by and large

However, as for your "strong as ever" statement, that's total crap. As I've already explained, a society needs to be united ideologically. Western "society" isn't; instead, you have so many different behavioral ideologies and cultures, that there is no UNIFIED single society. There is no structure, no order.

How can we call ourselves a society if we have absolutely nothing in common and couldn't care less about each other? The only "society" in the West is economic.

If we truly have our own way of doing things, as a unified society, how can we tolerate another? And if we do, doesn't that mean we AREN'T a unified society?

We need a unified cultural and moral outlook in order to have structure, and structure in order to have society. Western "society" is just a bunch of people living in one area without much of a sense of loyalty and identity to each other, from what I see.



You've never been there, have you? How is it a society? There are a bunch of different cultures and identities, how can you call it a society? It's a bunch of mini-societies. However, having alot of mini-societies creates a problem for government. Having a single society makes it alot easier and more comfortable for everyone.

I'm failing to see a problem...and I don't suppose you would have any examples to point to? No? Is that once again asking for too much? The problem is a lack of social cohesion. We have economic cohesion, but no sense of loyalty to each other.

As I said, if we are to have a structured society (therefore, that society must be uniform among the individual within it, to have THEIR OWN social codes of behavior), we need

1) A relatively uniform culture
2) A moral code that is the accepted norm
3) One social identity
4) One social loyalty
5) One social goal

If we don't have these things, how is it that we are a society?



Ah, bigotry finally rears its ugly head. What took so long? Hey, next time, just save me the trouble and say something retarded right from the start. It isn't bigotry, it's common sense. Nations should be formed for people with things in common, right?

Again, can you point to an area in our society that would fail if homosexuals were given the right to marry? I'm looking at California...nope, no new problems there. Massachusetts...nope, nothing to report there, either. So unless you have an example for me, I gotta go.

California, a society? HAHAHA! No.

It is a state, with many different mini-societies. There is NO single society in existence anywhere in the West, well, there probably isn't.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Homosexuals should be exiled. Asexuals should be counseled then exiled if they will not change. (Bisexuals will service the rich) Old maids should be forced to marry. Every married couple should be forced to have 1.6 children. Blacks should be kept in their proper place. Women should be kept barefoot & pregnant. Everyone healthy should be forced to work steady jobs. Everyone should dress the same & cut their hair the same. Women should be forced to shave their legs & underarms. Men must wear suits & ties. Each city should have a section for all the handicapped. The Grand Ole Flag must be saluted any time it comes in sight. Everyone must stand & salute during the Pledge Of Allegiance & The National War Song. Speaking against the Government is blasphemy. Ambrosia & sushi should be outlawed. There should be only 1 religion. Anyone who misses more than 1 church service in 3 months will be jailed for 3 days. The 3rd such offense within 7 years should require them locked the public stocks for 3 days. There will be only 7 styles of houses to choose from. 3 styles of ladies dresses. 3 styles each of men's shoes & ladies shoes. Only 1 style of car. Anyone caught not wearing underwear will be locked in the public stocks for 7 days if female or 3 days if male. Anyone saying the moon doesn't rotate will be under house arrest for 3 years. Jokes must be approved by the local Tribunal. Weird recipes must be approved by the Supreme Tribunal. Girls & boys cannot hold hands until the girl is 15 & the boy is 16. They cannot kiss until the girl is 17 & the boy is 18. They cannot CENCORED CENCORED CENCORED CENCORED they are 23 & married. Everyone must marry within the county they were born in. All music must be approved by the Supreme Tribunal. Any minority culture & customs must be adapted to fit the ways of the majority. The majority is right in everything & the Supreme Tribunal interprets the ways of the majority. There will be only 12 breeds of dogs & 7 breeds of cats. Everyone must sleep between 9pm & 7am. Everyone must work between 5am & 10pm. All businesses must open by 9am & close by 9pm. It should be illegal to stand in public & wave or rotate 1's arms for no apparent reason. There will be no lollygagging. Or dillydallying. Jaywalkers will be shot on sight.

[JDawg]

First off, modern Western "society" is based on religion by and large

In what respect? Oh, that's right, I forgot: you just make ridiculous statements without merit and refuse to back them up with relevant examples.

However, as for your "strong as ever" statement, that's total crap. As I've already explained, a society needs to be united ideologically. Western "society" isn't; instead, you have so many different behavioral ideologies and cultures, that there is no UNIFIED single society. There is no structure, no order.

In your opinion, obviously. But who made you the judge of such things? To say there is no order is a complete lie, however. You can walk down the street freely, you can order a pizza, you can sue someone for harassment, you are protected by your police force...where is the lack of structure?

We need a unified cultural and moral outlook in order to have structure, and structure in order to have society. Western "society" is just a bunch of people living in one area without much of a sense of loyalty and identity to each other, from what I see.

Ah, so we finally get the magic words: from what I see. It's about time you put a personal spin on the stuff you've been saying, since all of it is complete nonsense belonging to you alone and existing totally within the confines of you imagination.

How is it a society? There are a bunch of different cultures and identities, how can you call it a society? It's a bunch of mini-societies. However, having alot of mini-societies creates a problem for government. Having a single society makes it alot easier and more comfortable for everyone.

No, what we have are a bunch of different races, creeds, colors, and even cultures, living in one society under unified, universal rules. You have made it perfectly clear that you don't want such a thing to exist, but you can't simply say it doesn't because you don't want it to. Tell me, where is the problem for the government? No, don't run away, you were the one who said " creates a problem for government", so tell me in what way the situation as it is in New York City is a problem for government.

Please. Tell me. Show me one example, please, for the first time in this entire conversation.

The problem is a lack of social cohesion. We have economic cohesion, but no sense of loyalty to each other.

No, [i]we are doing just fine. You, on the other hand, find yourself on a sinking island of bigotry, and you've decided that it must not simply be your problem and the problem of those like you, but the problem of society as a whole. No, sorry, that's not the case. Society is doing fine. Those like you--the bigots, the ones that cling to their scriptures and scream while all the things you deem as immoral are being readily accepted into society--are dying out. So yes, I understand how it must seem grim for you. But trust me, you are the vast minority here, and that is why you feel so isolated.

It isn't bigotry, it's common sense. Nations should be formed for people with things in common, right?

No, it's not common sense. Common sense would be realizing that homosexuality has existed in every society and culture and civilization since the dawn of Man, even under the most detrimental and dangerous of circumstances, which should tell you not only that it is very real, but that it is very natural. And thus there is no need to hate on it.

California, a society? HAHAHA! No.

OK, you laugh. So far, that's as close as you've come to citing an example to back up your claims.

It is a state, with many different mini-societies. There is NO single society in existence anywhere in the West, well, there probably isn't.

Baseless, as usual.

I'm done here, since you simply, for lack of a better term, talk out your ass. Have a great day, bigot.