Autumn

I prefer this interpretation. xD

mahou shoujo

Thx =w=

They're not too long. It's pretty light because they're first year courses. So about 1000-1500 words each.

I have 2 reports due at the end of this week, so... Kind of?

I don't want to hear that from an inanimate object, blueberry.

I am doing well, thank you. Feeling so lazy, breathing is a bother

Hai Sol

Gr8 King Hattgara.

King Hattgara I

The day is being tsundere because you didn't pay it enough attention.

Suppose you could get bored of finding new things to do and experience. I find that hard to imagine though, I do not think the human lifespan is a long enough time frame for it to become unbearable, for most people.

Got to love how that wall of text describing democratic centralism was summed up in one sentence.

Tutoring can pay pretty damn well. You just need to have the reputation. Med school students are really popular for this, for obvious reasons. The science plebs like me get to rot though

I was planning on just not replying anymore because of how tiring this was getting and how maka and my discussion was based on a misunderstanding. I can't really be bothered explaining why the assumptions I made were quite natural given the circumstance, but just take that as my opinion because this takes a bit too much energy to justify and it doesn't matter anyway. But not replying to this is like running away, so I will. Now, what you said before about how all religious people have hard line stances and that you should ask them difficult questions and probe them to prove the conclusion you are predisposed to, isn't a sign of treating religious folks with respect. Talking about extremists when I defend religious moderates isn't a sign you treat religious folks with respect. Saying that they put on an inoffensive facade in order to attract people to their faith is not respect either, that's assuming what they think based on no evidence at all. Cherrypicking evidence against religion by bringing up the catholic church and ignoring every other charity that attracted people under the banner of religion, is also dishonest and disrespectful. Except a religion can also act in ways that are not defined by it's ideology. 'Thou shalt not kill' yet the crusades happenned. Just like how a nation can say 'I'm protecting you!' while gassing thousands of jews. Where. 2000 is a higher number than 1000, but 1000 is still a pretty big number, it is also net positive. And no we don't know that, there is no evidence proving that. It is just very very likely that it is the case- Even if it was, that alone doesn't justify that religion is net negative. By religion, just then, I basically just mean christianity. Because religions like buddhism has never started a single war. Anyway, even christiantiy itself cannot justify the atrocities it caused, so the atrocity point is kind of moot.

What? I was originally pointing out the things dondon was using to complain about religion, and saying that there are those exact same traits in other things like government and humanity. The person who made the first comparison is you, and I disagreed with it, because they're not comparable in that way. If you want to discuss secular ideaology compared to religious ideaology, then there is nothing to discuss, I have made it very clear I agree that secular methods ARE usually better than religious ones, simply because they don't claim moral authority. But other than that I think both are a method of controlling people for, "their own good" there is nothing different between religious or secular governance other than that one claims moral authority and thus is potentially more damaging. But so what? That doesn't rule my first paragraph out because I was asking dondon to explain his logic behind this double standard I'm seeing. If they're somehow different, he should explain that. No it's not, the practicality of the things proposed by dondon is the ONLY thing I was concerned about. I don't care if it's wrong in some philosophical, hypothetical sense, what works works, what doesnt' work doesn't. Yeah a problem exists, I never denied that. No you have a right to say it. I'll just say you have a severe lack of pragmatism and foresight for doing so. Because the world WON'T be better off without it, because every solution one can propose where the result is the eradication of all religion, is far worse than what you started off with. I also have a right to say this about you. Except you cannot separate the method in which an ends is achieved from the ends it does achieve. Reality doesn't work like that. I was comparing the magnitude of damage that results from say, a loved one dying. And getting your arm chopped off. You can make the comparison (or I would prefer, observation) that these are both terrible things that have happened. You started comparing, WHICH ONE is more damaging. As if emotional hurt as if emotional pain and physical pain is comparable. Uh what about Dondon and co demonising religion as if it's the right thing to do. You DO realise that's the basis of my entire argument? You realise I am throughly uninterested in fantasy conclusions with no explanation as to how to get there? You mean. Person B, gets wronged by person C in community A. This person C has been dead for quite some time. The community has changed leadership and has changed many, many of it's ways. The rest of the people in the community preach goodwill and kindness. Person B wants compensation. They cannot get it through the way they deserve to get it, peaceful negotiations. Above and beyond that, they cannot even get it by using force because they are too weak. They cannot even speak on their own behalf. They are powerless. Does the community, have to recompensate person B? For something they never did? Do they deserve to be demonised to be ostracised for their thoughts on an old man on a cloud? I just mistakenly assumed that you weren't daydreaming so hard that you forget about all possible methods that X could possibly get Y. Which is the ONLY thing I took issue with. If you mean, if the world no longer has ideological orthodoxy. Then we agree. What are we arguing about? Well that is what you mean then. In that case, we don't disagree. I only disagreed with demonising religion as an entirety and everyone in it because it's so counterproductive it hurts. If you're not defending that, then I have no issue. I DO think the world would be nicer without ideaological orthodoxy, I've said this many times. Note: It would be nice =/= religion deserves everything it takes to eradicate it. I think, religion deserves a peaceful willing death. Where all religious people gradually can see the world without resorting to fantasy explanations. But they do not deserve to be shunned and treated like a heresy by people. No that's not what I'm saying. I agree it would be better. It could be worked towards and I am willing to help in that. But this "working towards" method is something I argue about because some anti-religion zealots seem to think it's productive to treat religious people like heretics. I always thought you were referring to my stance against dondon. Which is why the premise is, that you guys think religion and religious people deserve to be treated with condemnation and everything is permitted to get rid of it, even if it means trying to ostracise an entire demographic through demonising it. Which is such a morally and logically untenable position I would be surprised if anyone who is not an ideologue actually thought that was a good idea. If you don't think that, then I have no problem with you.

But it does make sense because of the 'lesser evil, greater evil' point you, yourself made. It doesn't matter if you are comparing apples and oranges if both of them are made of atoms. Just like both government and ideaologies have a history of committing atrocities. I don't know how you can cut such a demonstrable fact. But the ONLY ideology we have mentioned throughout this whole discussion is religion. We have not compared two ideologies and the relative magnitude of them. That makes no sense. Also, then isn't it the job of secular government and education, to ensure they DON'T get any power? Wouldn't the produce the same functional result than had you forcibly eradicated religion? I would in fact, argue that the former solution of secularism ensuring the balance of power would result in a better world because people are free to think and say whatever they _want_. Thus upholding the values of free speech you didn't disagree with me on, in the freedom discussion. Yes, but I said they were both terrible in the context of what dondon said. You took that and decided to see which is more harmful religon or government as if they were even comparable. No. That's moronic. Just because something is objectively inadequate and if you can magically find a better solution then I think it deserves to go- Does not mean that it also deserves it when if you cannot, that's how you create a *dystopia* that's not justice for the peaceful members of the religion. Religion deserves to be told that it is imperfect and people have done so. I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem is, is the idea of somehow purging religion through force of propaganda like demonisation. If someone is human and makes a human mistake, they don't deserve to erased from the world or socially ostracised, they deserve to be TOLD that they can do better. If someone are not committing any crimes in their lifetime they should not be purged- they never did anything to hurt anyone. If modern religion isn't holding crusades and all they are doing is peddling charities and volunteer programs, then they do not deserve to be purged. Purging people for wrongthink is authoritarian and just plain wrong. You are drawing a false equivalency here. Just because said, 'oh it would be nice if the world is more ideal' doesn't mean I approve of draconian tactics to achieve this end, and it doesn't mean that the judgement of it's merit is transmissible between contexts, in this case entire WORLDS. They don't contradict because of the context of the statement. In a different world with magical ways, then sure in that world it deserves to be stamped out because there is something more idea and is realistically attainable. But in THIS world it is not, and in THIS world, on the grounds of practicality, no I DON'T think they deserve it because there IS no option better than the one they provide. They DO deserve to be told that the idea of religion is not ideal not to be eradicated through turning it into a heresy. If my reason for thinking it deserves to be eliminated is based on the merit that it is imperfect in a perfect world, then it isn't applicable to this world where everything is imperfect. There is no contradiction.

Except you changed "religion" to something like "the papacy". I was talking about an ideaology. Ideaologies are not governments, no one calls it that, I wasn't referring to this definition of government you have decided to use. Otherwise all ideologies are government all ideologies can lead people astray, let's somehow abolish them, as if you can objectively dictate whether it is right to do so or not. Not all religions are institutions. Catharism told people to not follow the pope and instead focus more on Jesus's teachings. That didn't cause damage. Buddhism just got murdered a lot in history. Is that a government? Government by the definition of it, and the commonly referred to idea of it, is the dangerous organisation. Theocracies are a government too. But I wasn't referred to that, religions which =/= theocracies. Theocracies are the combination of government and religion, which is what I agreed, was worse. Nice strawman anyway. In a hypothetical world. You texas sharpshooter. What? No it doesn't. In a hypothetical world where you can purge something only minimally bad, then sure. But this is NOT that hypothetical world, therefore they dont' deserve to die and they shouldn't be told to do so. What are you talking about. ...Because you can't? You can't mind control people? The current religious institutions in the west are doing quite a lot of good? Better than any of the solutions one can propose??? A fuss is an understatement. I don't mind mess. I just don't want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship as a result. Nice. So, how are you going to abolish religion, friend? You have yet to tell me a method that does NOT in fact result in a worse situation than you had started out with.

Which is the same thing that could be said about government. Take away the thing that can lead a government to do bad things away, then it won't do bad things. If a government is such a beast that if it has a reason, it will abuse it, then it is the nature of the beast to abuse the any reason, even something as absurd as a flying man on a cloud. This is a non point. I don't think you can objectively say which is more damaging than the other. You tell me. Tell me one good way to get rid of ideological orthodoxy by demonising it, without things simply getting worse. I'm not disagreeing with you that ideological orthodoxy is bad, I don't disagree that everything religion can do, something secular can do better. I think the world is less than is ideal. But I'm going to accept the existence of a religion that is so fiercely regulated by people staring it down all the time, waiting for a chance to snipe at it and pick it up as an example to push their narrative that religion should be eradicated. Religion isn't going away no matter what you do, even if you revive the soviet union it's not going to work. Get rid of the big religions and small cults will spring up. Get rid of those and you will have ideological orthodoxy under another banner, such as identity politics. I'm willing to accept it, because I see no way this can get any better immediately than it is now if you just try to get rid of it with force. As for my point, that's an add on to everything else I say about how getting rid of religion in such a way is not going to work. In that context, I'm sure it makes more sense. Not only is your justification completely ignoring the greater of the evils, it also tries to get rid of this evil that serves as the stopper something bigger were you to strike it down violently (somehow). Think about it this way. Okay if you somehow bring down the big religions with the pure force of propaganda. Having everyone turn upon their kindly, well-doing religions friends, and forcibly converting them, Hitler youth style. Is that an ending you think is better than having modern western religion be as it is now? How about if you got the state and banned religion. How well did that work for the Soviet Union? Now you have BOTH little cults operating under the radar and an authoritarian government. Is that an ending you would prefer? The only way to get rid of ideological orthodoxy is through time, education and understanding, NOT demonisation. Teach people ways you can stand without having to believe you are a slave to a greater being. Teach people moral values without the nastiness in holy texts. You don't rile up hatred and demonise people who do good but simply believes something you don't believe. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm saying people like dondon were doing this and that's the only thing I had a problem with. And even with this method, I doubt it would work. Religion is rampant among humans, the only way I can see it is that it's ingrained within our very natures to not want to die forever. QED it's here to stay, so do what is most practical, with the assumption that it's not going to go away. That is, talk to them, tell them not to be a zealot. Teach them about morality. But demonising them and making enemies of all of them is going to solve nothing. It's going to make things worse. "I'm saying organised religion does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out." In the context of everything else I had said. Let me make that clearer for you. "I'm saying organised religion as a whole does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out, because it is so much better than every solution you can hope to propose that involves force. Because of every *individual* moderate within it, doing good." The demonisation of an entire demographic of people is an injustice and it is damaging. It is authoritarian and collectivist, and I don't see how this is even a tenable position for anyone to morally, logically or pragmatically hold.

A religion without government is also statistically violent than a religion without governmental power. Except that's not my original point. ^THAT's my point. I'm not saying they're wrong in saying the idea that people follow an organisation that claims to preach the truth regardless of evidence or morality. I don't think idealogical orthodoxy is at all a good thing. What I'm saying is, I see they do enough good in the world that I don't think it's fair to demonise everyone IN it, and to disregard everything good religion DOES do. As for my opinion on religion, I don't think religion is inherently bad, I think people can be. I've seen religion used for both good and bad, the only factor that is different is who the religion is peddled by. I can agree that religion isn't innocuous, in fact it's quite a lot like a gun. But in the end I still think it's people, that are to blame, and if you eradicate and demonise organised religion- Then what? That's not going to solve anything. People who want to lean on things will find something to lean against. And small cults are far more damaging than organised religion with the watchful eye of anti-religion zealots on them. I can agree that in some hypothetical world where you can SOMEHOW get rid of ideological orthodoxy- Sure, get rid of organised religion. But I see no way to do that and none of these anti-religion zealots seem to be able to come up with a real world solution either. Again, I'm not arguing that religion is good. I'm saying organised religion does not deserve to be portrayed as something to be stamped out, and I think demonising it does a lot more harm than good in the modern west.

Yep, of course. But the imperfection of an ideology alone doesn't damn it.

Yeah ok, I shouldn't have said it in past tense. I don't agree that governments are less violent than religious ones. Religion is only powerful when it entrenches itself in government. Is that a government or the religion doing the damage here? Also the original point still stands.

I know there is a whole debate on what a government is for. In fact I think a minimalist government is optimal, but that's just my uneducated opinion. I'm not naive enough to think government and religion necessarily benevolent or necessary. (This is also why I am an agnostic and I identify as a libertarian.) If we want to discuss what might be a better way of doing things, sure, but that's not what my point was. My point about religion, and government was, in this instance, is that if you want to dig into the past, then everything is proven to fail. At this standard they are using, there is no good way of doing things and there is nothing good in this world. After all, every war and every atrocity committed was committed at the hands of humanity. I don't see any of these anti-religion advocates, advocating for the genocide or incarceration of all of humanity. I just think they're very poor arguing points. I don't say that they're wrong- I just think their arguments are bad and my opinion on the issue is different from theirs.