I am of the conviction religion should be discouraged and openly rebuffed. Not persecuted, due to the tendency of this to create martyrs and add fire to the fervor of already deluded believers, but simply scorned and treated as a dangerous and archaic - if somewhat amusing - remnant of pre-modern thought. In the same way that defunct ideas/notions such as alchemy or the Galenic corpus or the Miasma theory of disease are no longer considered in any decision-making on part of individuals or groups or taken seriously by people, religion should not be exempt. And yet, people continue to make exemptions and allowances for religious belief, treating it as though it were 'real' or valid despite providing no real contributions or evidence for its own existence, and in spite of its well-documented history of abuses and scandals and record of fundamentalism that directly goes against modern secular attempts to increase quality of life (and all simply for the sake of a supposed celestial dictator who has never been seen).
No persecution, but certainly, the end of tax exemptions to all religious organizations in developed nations. That's a good first step. Followed by the end of political "alliances" with religious groups (for example, LGBT groups aligning with supposedly 'tolerant' Christian ministries, etc.).
And this should be on an official level.
>>1304628
There are many spelling mistakes in what you wrote. You seem like an illiterate moron.
>>1304628
>this post
>>1304628
>I am of the conviction religion should be discouraged and openly rebuffed
It already happens. Why do you think most people are irreligious?
>>1304664
>Why do you think most people are irreligious?
Most people where? You do realize that the openly irreligious are the minority, right?
>>1304628
I would agree with your premise that belief can (emphasis on can) be harmful but what you suggest really sounds like discrimination and would help no one.
>>1304676
>Most people where?
Fuck off ignorant ameritard. The world is a larger place than your shitheap of a city in the south.
>>1304676
Almost every country around the world, especially in the west. Majority of people everywhere don't practice religion at all.
Religion is dead.
>>1304687
Actually, I take that back, what you suggested isn't half bad. Tax exemptions should go, yes.
>>1304645
>It already happens
No it doesn't. Religions have tax-exempt status in most developed countries; they also form powerful blocs and political alliances that provide opposition to significant numbers of proposed legislation based less on any actual information and more on "; they exert considerable influence on a not-insignificant portion of the population, which in cases leads to other issues (i.e. the large number of homeless youths in the U.S. being the result of being kicked out of home for not professing belief or being homosexuals; the high prevalence of teenage pregnancies in the U.S. when compared to the developed world due to religious organizations preventing access to sexual education; high rates of STDs in certain areas from this same lack of sexual education and religious opposition to condoms or other barriers [this also applies to Africa])
On the other hand, religion exerts too much power; it needs to be reduced, in light of its lack of supernatural credentials and man-made origin.
>>1304628
Are you Marx or Nietsche in terms of Anti Religiosity?
>>1304691
>religion is dead
Openly criticize the notion of human rights or democracy then come back and say that
>>1304690
I'm not the retarded one here. Two thirds of the world are religious.
>>1304701
>are you retarded or autistic
OP checks both
>>1304628
Why must this thing alway be this destructive and hateful? It is sure that there is a God. I'm not describing it in this post but there is this personal part about God and a part that has to be done by humans. Or it is this material.
All in all it isn't hard to see that the best solution is to look for reformation of Christianity, especially by people that tend to thinking real. But this isn't there.
Would your view be different if it is certain that there is a God?
>>1304676
>You do realize that the openly irreligious are the minority, right
Even in your own country of Burgerland, most people are only nominally religious. They attend religious services on some occasions and may even profess to be of a faith, but realistically, their identity is not based on the religion, nor do they particularly follow the tenets or aim to do so.
It's more of a cultural thing, especially in your Burgerland where going to church on Sunday with family and then having breakfast in your suburban house is seen as something quintessentially "American".
>>1304690
Seems, like only 21 out of 193 countries have 50 or more percent irreligious people, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion
>>1304719
>Would your view be different if it is certain that there is a God?
Why, that's quite a stupid question. Would my supposed knowledge of anatomy be different if the theory of humors were somehow correct?
>>1304719
>"God's real because I felt him once and that's enough proof for all the human race, so there!"
Christcucks really are a special kind of stupid.
>>1304638
There are none. Your rage is showing, though.
>>1304725
>>1304728
I think I shouldn't just start proving the existence of God. Because this is about being real.
The "genetical code" of how I think about this >>1304628
or this >>1304725 >>1304728 is the exact same thing. Only it includes the existence of a spiritual world that is said to have one supreme being.
So maybe you can answer why it seems I am the only one that is right.
Or, if you don't take this seriously
Why would you WANT to disagree about the existence of a God while it is clear this exists?
>>1304738
There are spelling errors.
>>1304747
>spiritual world
>>>/x/
>>>/trash/
>>1304761
But really, it is like I'm the only one in the whole world that is right about this. I know how this sounds, but analysing this, I think it is the only right conclusion. Or it isn't an unreal conclusion so to speak.
So why trash? Because you know it exists, but you have a reason why you don't want this
or
You genuinely believe it does not exist?
>>1304774
>I'm the only one in the whole world that is right about this.
But the normal, expectable simple logic by which is
1. absurd
2. insane
3. not right
That I would
>>1304628
Ok, you have a strong opinion that is basically right in a number of ways.
But why do you apparently do not WANT to see that there is a God? It could also be some sort of mistake because of mainstream thinking?
I wanted more proof and just got it.
>>1304774
>it is like I'm the only one in the whole world that is right about this
And you honestly believe that you are different from every single individual who also claimed to have knowledge of the nature of the divine and transcendental, of man's purpose, of cosmology and eschatology, and the afterlife?
>You genuinely believe it does not exist?
I know it does not exist.
>>1304791
>that you are different from
It is insane. Knowing facts can be similar but not in putting them together. Of course the sources are all the same too.
I'm not of above average intelligence. One thing could be that I would consider talent something that can be built. But this is not such a special ideal to have or to think of. Comparative. So to just be somewhat creative and inventive. It is no more. I don't have to let me be "freaked" in any way without a reason.
>I know it does not exist.
But do you know about all the people that experienced and documented differently?
So what is your reason to either not want this to be true or to follow some mainstream thought this much? How did you get your strong conviction? Or you wouldn't write this?
>>1304702
What? Notion of human rights and democracy was historically something that the religious establishment was opposed to, and only embraced relatively recently due to save face.
>>1304628
I don't think I'd go as far as you but I agree with the notion that religious beliefs shouldn't really be given any more respect than beliefs in ghosts or lizard people or something. It seems like the only reason people respect religions beliefs any more is because there's a lot of religious people and they're pretty invested in their beliefs. It doesn't really feel fair to give them more leeway than the average /x/phile or whatever they're called, then.
I guess I can see why it happens, though, I wouldn't really want them to feel antagonised to the point where it starts creating larger barriers between theists and non-theists or anything, hostility and tension. Doesn't seem like a good way to convince them non-theists and atheism are reasonable and valuable.
So this: >>1304810
>How did you get your strong conviction?
