My Proposal For Harmonious Coexistence

[AtheistBuddah]

My proposal is simply this. Theists and non theists from all walks of life with all manner of differing viewpoints gather and agree that they are each entitled to their views and beliefs and that they must all be given at the very least an acknowledgement of their subjective value.

From this point the group can then form a set of minimum requirements for what is an impermissible action. (Because while beliefs only affect the individual holding them, actions affect everyone and we have to live together for better for worse and coexist.) This minimum standard would ignore if an action was objectionable or offensive. It would for example be concerned with whether or not the action limits or diminishes the quality of life of another person, either by causing them physical or psychological harm or harm to property. Or if it infringes upon their right to perform on action that does not meet the other minimum requirements for being impermissible. These are just some examples.

Anyway I feel that if all religious and ideological groups could come together and come up with a minimum standard like this that they all had to adhere to, then we could all get along much easier in this society.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you remember the TEA Party protests surrounding ObamaCare? All those town halls of people furious about what liberals were imposing on them? The mass protests. Those events were very clear indications of the "leave me alone" mode of thought that you're proposing here and yet did we see liberals stop and say "you're right, we have no moral right to impose collectivist health on you when you object to it"

If you're a religious person and your belief tells you that your view is right, because God says so, then you'd have to be evil to not try to save other people. Liberals with their health care push actually think that they're doing good work. It's hard to get people who think that they're saving you from refraining and letting harm fall on you. You're going to go to hell or you're not going to be able to get "free" birth control pills unless they help you and protect your from your own ignorance.

You need to find a way to neutralize that mindset.

Good luck with that mission.

 

[MaxGrit]

Impossible to have harmonious coexistence with corrupted human nature.

 

[Snouter]

Just the Yahweh/Allah cults themselves have no chance of finding common ground. The so-called Jews think they are from the Lost Tribes of Israel and that Yahweh promised them Palestine if they did as Jeremiah suggested and that is to be racist and inbred. The so-called Jews don't want conversions and think only they will be beneficiaries as a result of their occult beliefs and racist practices of not interbreeding. The Muslims actually want people to convert, but of course will kill those who don't because they are insecure in their cult. It is sickening in the modern age to be at the mercy of ridiculous cults such as Judaism, Islam, and Catholicism.

 

[gipper]

My proposal is simply this. Theists and non theists from all walks of life with all manner of differing viewpoints gather and agree that they are each entitled to their views and beliefs and that they must all be given at the very least an acknowledgement of their subjective value.

From this point the group can then form a set of minimum requirements for what is an impermissible action. (Because while beliefs only affect the individual holding them, actions affect everyone and we have to live together for better for worse and coexist.) This minimum standard would ignore if an action was objectionable or offensive. It would for example be concerned with whether or not the action limits or diminishes the quality of life of another person, either by causing them physical or psychological harm or harm to property. Or if it infringes upon their right to perform on action that does not meet the other minimum requirements for being impermissible. These are just some examples.

Anyway I feel that if all religious and ideological groups could come together and come up with a minimum standard like this that they all had to adhere to, then we could all get along much easier in this society.

I do not intend to be critical, but you seem to think you have a novel idea.

You might want to research the political ideology known as Libertarianism. Its all there...

According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997.
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Everyone needs to mind their own business.

No one has a right to tell anyone else what's good for them.

So shut up, mind your own business and leave other people alone.

That is the key to coexisting peacefully.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Just the Yahweh/Allah cults themselves have no chance of finding common ground. The so-called Jews think they are from the Lost Tribes of Israel and that Yahweh promised them Palestine if they did as Jeremiah suggested and that is to be racist and inbred. The so-called Jews don't want conversions and think only they will be beneficiaries as a result of their occult beliefs and racist practices of not interbreeding. The Muslims actually want people to convert, but of course will kill those who don't because they are insecure in their cult. It is sickening in the modern age to be at the mercy of ridiculous cults such as Judaism, Islam, and Catholicism.

You forgot to include the mindless religions of Liberalism and Environmentalism.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

My proposal is simply this. Theists and non theists from all walks of life with all manner of differing viewpoints gather and agree that they are each entitled to their views and beliefs and that they must all be given at the very least an acknowledgement of their subjective value.

From this point the group can then form a set of minimum requirements for what is an impermissible action. (Because while beliefs only affect the individual holding them, actions affect everyone and we have to live together for better for worse and coexist.) This minimum standard would ignore if an action was objectionable or offensive. It would for example be concerned with whether or not the action limits or diminishes the quality of life of another person, either by causing them physical or psychological harm or harm to property. Or if it infringes upon their right to perform on action that does not meet the other minimum requirements for being impermissible. These are just some examples.

Anyway I feel that if all religious and ideological groups could come together and come up with a minimum standard like this that they all had to adhere to, then we could all get along much easier in this society.

I do not intend to be critical, but you seem to think you have a novel idea.

You might want to research the political ideology known as Libertarianism. Its all there...

According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997.
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

I admit full well that my ideas are largely inspired by Libertarianism. I know that my idea is neither novel nor entire feasible, sadly, as people have such a compulsion to do just the opposite.

 

[Hollie]

My proposal is simply this. Theists and non theists from all walks of life with all manner of differing viewpoints gather and agree that they are each entitled to their views and beliefs and that they must all be given at the very least an acknowledgement of their subjective value.

From this point the group can then form a set of minimum requirements for what is an impermissible action. (Because while beliefs only affect the individual holding them, actions affect everyone and we have to live together for better for worse and coexist.) This minimum standard would ignore if an action was objectionable or offensive. It would for example be concerned with whether or not the action limits or diminishes the quality of life of another person, either by causing them physical or psychological harm or harm to property. Or if it infringes upon their right to perform on action that does not meet the other minimum requirements for being impermissible. These are just some examples.

Anyway I feel that if all religious and ideological groups could come together and come up with a minimum standard like this that they all had to adhere to, then we could all get along much easier in this society.

I do not intend to be critical, but you seem to think you have a novel idea.

You might want to research the political ideology known as Libertarianism. Its all there...

According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997.
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

I admit full well that my ideas are largely inspired by Libertarianism. I know that my idea is neither novel nor entire feasible, sadly, as people have such a compulsion to do just the opposite.

I'd offer a moderately positive assessment that the goal of coexistence (yes-we backslide at times), largely exists.

Religion, at least in Western cultures, is largely a private and personal matter. For the most part it is not often dragged into the public arena or forced upon others. And yes, while the courts will adjudicate issues of fundamentalist Christian groups seeking to impose religion into public schools, religious displays on State property, etc., in a democratic republic such as ours, you can believe (or not) as you wish, and you can expect that right to be honored (even if grudgingly) and protected by law. We've evolved away from such totalitarian constructs as forced religion. We promote the right of others to be free and we understand the benefit to ourselves when we have democratic allies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My proposal is simply this. Theists and non theists from all walks of life with all manner of differing viewpoints gather and agree that they are each entitled to their views and beliefs and that they must all be given at the very least an acknowledgement of their subjective value.

From this point the group can then form a set of minimum requirements for what is an impermissible action. (Because while beliefs only affect the individual holding them, actions affect everyone and we have to live together for better for worse and coexist.) This minimum standard would ignore if an action was objectionable or offensive. It would for example be concerned with whether or not the action limits or diminishes the quality of life of another person, either by causing them physical or psychological harm or harm to property. Or if it infringes upon their right to perform on action that does not meet the other minimum requirements for being impermissible. These are just some examples.

Anyway I feel that if all religious and ideological groups could come together and come up with a minimum standard like this that they all had to adhere to, then we could all get along much easier in this society.

Does that mean you are going to stop attacking people based on their beliefs instead of their actions?

Didn't think so, which is why I feel no obligation to play your stupid games. You are a despicable asshole, and deserve less respect than I give to the poisonous molds that infest water logged houses.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Mine is we erect a high wall around the center of Australia and put all the religious people inside it ala "Escape from New York" and let em live out their lives while th rest of the world lives harmoniously.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Mine is we erect a high wall around the center of Australia and put all the religious people inside it ala "Escape from New York" and let em live out their lives while th rest of the world lives harmoniously.

All the religious people in one spot? They would be short, violent lives lol

 

[Rikurzhen]

Mine is we erect a high wall around the center of Australia and put all the religious people inside it ala "Escape from New York" and let em live out their lives while th rest of the world lives harmoniously.

All the religious people in one spot? They would be short, violent lives lol

I'd bet that Liberals would come out on top. Long experience with totalitarian infighting sharpens their survival skills. Look at how their religion is dominating others in society today.

 

[September]

The truest answer is to unite the masses into an army to attack The Vatican, Mecca, and Jerusalem.

Then, when Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been dealt with... we should impose upon humanity a one world Pagan religion under a single world leader who is revered as a god... drawing power and strengths from the many previous religions and declaring a new era of spiritual balance.


​

 

[September]

The truest answer is to unite the masses into an army to attack The Vatican, Mecca, and Jerusalem.

Then, when Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been dealt with... we should impose upon humanity a one world Pagan religion under a single world leader who is revered as a god... drawing power and strengths from the many previous religions and declaring a new era of spiritual balance.


​

Booooooo

Indeed, atheists would likely be gathered into a great colliseum and forced to battle Christians, Muslims, and Jews in single combat as well as group combat.

To the death, obviously.

We can use some of them to perform scientific experiments on so that we might discover brilliant ways to accelerate the evolution of the human species... whether that means evolving our organic form, or transforming a human into a mechanical, synthetic creature with less weaknesses... or perhaps a biomechanical hybrid of both.

Some humans, who reject the one world religion, could be used as a power source for advanced machines.

They might be used for organ harvesting or even as slaves. Perhaps we could find ways to deprive you of free will and choice, likely by stripping you of your "humanity" and somehow transforming you into a mindless "robot"-like creature.
​

 

[Agit8r]

When Native Americans wanted to avoid modernity, they were sent to reservations to practice their customs and beliefs as they saw fit. I'm guessing that most of the atavistic faction don't think that was wrong to do.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Mine is we erect a high wall around the center of Australia and put all the religious people inside it ala "Escape from New York" and let em live out their lives while th rest of the world lives harmoniously.

Hitler had an idea comparable to that. How did that work out for your people? Your post shows you as the racist you are Delta.