Should any government silence dissenters of religion if they are not promoting violence?

[Joy4Uall]

Sunni you can subscribe to their blog and provide some financial support for two bucks a month.

Yea, I'm pulling out my credit card right now.

I have a feeling that you want what's best for the world, like I do - and I think we can agree that treating people based on MERIT is best - and not on which religion they are (sending ethical hardworking non-believers to Allah's "hell"), and not on what they have between their legs (women's testimony in court is only worth HALF that of the apparently superior male's, just for being women.) Correct?

"Quran (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women."

We didn't bring forward into our belief system Q2:282, but did bring forward "there is no compulsion in religion" (Mohammad said early in his career, which we love - but we didn't bring forward death for apostasy like he preached later in his career, as his armies were much stronger.)

I appreciate the patience that you've shown towards me. I admire that about you.

 

[ding]

The man being prosecuted in Denmark had burnt a Quran.

That is blasphemy and he should be severely punished. .....

Scientific Humanism is more, well, tolerant than that - can we agree that tolerance of people giving their opinions (even if "blasphemous") is a good thing, even when we really really disagree with what they say?
"When in doubt, err on the side of freedom" - The Book of Scientific Humamism

I can't think of a more dangerous religion than humanism. The last time we had that 200 million people were murdered.

Yes, we strongly agree with each other that totalitarian dictators (yes, even secular ones) are not what's best for the world!

Fortunately I'm not a communist, or approve of dictatorships (Jesus approved of totalitarian political schemes and didn't believe in democracy, so SH doesn't bring forward those parts of the Bible, but does bring forward "love your neighbor" - Jesus got some things right and some wrong.)

Fortunately my belief system values freedom/democracy more than Christianity, Islam, etc do, in fact more than any other overall belief system I've ever heard of (sorry, communists)....here is the #1 "Commandment" of SH:
1. Believe in freedom:
a. Political (secular democracy)
b. Religious
c. Freedom of speech (vs. being overly politically-correct, etc.)
Center for Scientific Humanism: The Ten Commandments of Scientific Humanism

Can you and I agree that we love freedom so much that we agree that this is a striking improvement over the Bible that does approve of, say, beating slaves, but does not mention democracy? And is best for the world (over the largely-well intended Bible, even?)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Jesus wasn't political at all. His message was a personal message not a societal message.

The thing is that militant atheism leads to communism. You can't have a world based on materialism any other way.

 

[Joy4Uall]

......

Face to faith: New atheists duck the philosophical arguments of atheistic anti-humanism

You make a very common mistake, but I don't blame you at all: we are Scientific Humanists, not "New Atheists".....unless a "New Atheist" has the Book of Scientific Humanism as his/her main book, of course.
Dawkins et al are not nearly as positive and accepting as we are, it seems. The attitude of the New Atheists is very scientifically correct, and we greatly admire that, but fairly or not they are perceived by people as "mean". Their main focus is condemning religious people ("The God DELUSION", etc.) But we have brought forward many of their greatest beliefs - just like with the top 10 beliefs in the world today - Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.

We dearly love "New Atheists", of course, however - equally as much as we love, say, Hindus and Christians, and equally as much as we love Scientific Humanists. That's a strange concept for people of other beliefs to fathom, since their god sends non-believers to brutal torture in his own Auschwitz ("hell".)

 

[Joy4Uall]

The man being prosecuted in Denmark had burnt a Quran.

That is blasphemy and he should be severely punished. .....

Scientific Humanism is more, well, tolerant than that - can we agree that tolerance of people giving their opinions (even if "blasphemous") is a good thing, even when we really really disagree with what they say?
"When in doubt, err on the side of freedom" - The Book of Scientific Humamism

I can't think of a more dangerous religion than humanism. The last time we had that 200 million people were murdered.

Yes, we strongly agree with each other that totalitarian dictators (yes, even secular ones) are not what's best for the world!

Fortunately I'm not a communist, or approve of dictatorships (Jesus approved of totalitarian political schemes and didn't believe in democracy, so SH doesn't bring forward those parts of the Bible, but does bring forward "love your neighbor" - Jesus got some things right and some wrong.)

Fortunately my belief system values freedom/democracy more than Christianity, Islam, etc do, in fact more than any other overall belief system I've ever heard of (sorry, communists)....here is the #1 "Commandment" of SH:
1. Believe in freedom:
a. Political (secular democracy)
b. Religious
c. Freedom of speech (vs. being overly politically-correct, etc.)
Center for Scientific Humanism: The Ten Commandments of Scientific Humanism

Can you and I agree that we love freedom so much that we agree that this is a striking improvement over the Bible that does approve of, say, beating slaves, but does not mention democracy? And is best for the world (over the largely-well intended Bible, even?)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Jesus wasn't political at all. His message was a personal message not a societal message.

The thing is that militant atheism leads to communism. You can't have a world based on materialism any other way.

Our belief system is fortunately not "militant".

 

[Sunni Man]

No matter how you slice-em & dice-em..... old or new....mean or nice.

When you really get down to it, Humanists are just your typical garden variety atheists. ....

 

[RodISHI]

No matter how you slice-em & dice-em..... old or new....mean or nice.

When you really get down to it, Humanists are just your typical garden variety atheists. ....

This one seems to quote your fav book though and is seeking just a little tiny bit of financial support. Are you sure its' not an Islam brother or sister working an angle to get you to really get your credit card or paypal account ready?

 

[Joy4Uall]

No matter how you slice-em & dice-em..... old or new....mean or nice.

When you really get down to it, Humanists are just your typical garden variety atheists. ....

Nope, SH is a "new sheriff" in town - not the same ol' same ol'. We will indeed believe in a god if he loves us enough to give us a court-room level of evidence that he's more real than the other gods are. Maybe some day he (or she?) will do that - until then, we don't bring forward the unscientific parts of the top 10 religions - but we do bring forward the real good parts, such as "killing one man is like killing all of humanity" - Mohammad (PBUH). THAT verse is what's best for the world - but not, say, "kill the infidels wherever you find them".

 

[Joy4Uall]

No matter how you slice-em & dice-em..... old or new....mean or nice.

When you really get down to it, Humanists are just your typical garden variety atheists. ....

This one seems to quote your fav book though and is seeking just a little tiny bit of financial support. Are you sure its' not an Islam brother or sister working an angle to get you to really get your credit card or paypal account ready?

They don't appear to beg for cash, as such.
"New Atheists" don't ever appear to credit Islam with any good texts, but they certainly do exist. Perhaps Sunni Man can make some suggestions to eventually go into our belief system's book. His family might come up with some great wording (we believe in them!), and/or maybe he can quote some great stuff from the hadith, or from an Imam, etc.

See, Sunni Man is capable of coming up with better wording, I believe, than, say, "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" - Psalm 137:9. I believe in him, so why would I not want his input on improving our belief system? The Bible (in Revelation) won't let Sunni Man improve the Bible....there's a better way, guys.

 

[Joy4Uall]

I believe that your children are smart enough to improve on the part that says that women only get HALF the inheritance of a man - don't you?

#1) the Quran doesn't need improvement or modification. So quit insulting me with your insistence that it does........

If it was improved then some of the 5.8 billion non-Muslims in the world would possibly get to avoid the Islamic "hell" because they would stop rejecting the Islamic faith. Since Q4:34 says to BEAT women, that obviously is going to keep some people away from Islam. Improved Islamic texts mean more Muslims - what is wrong with more Muslims, Sunni Man?

 

[RodISHI]

No matter how you slice-em & dice-em..... old or new....mean or nice.

When you really get down to it, Humanists are just your typical garden variety atheists. ....

This one seems to quote your fav book though and is seeking just a little tiny bit of financial support. Are you sure its' not an Islam brother or sister working an angle to get you to really get your credit card or paypal account ready?

They don't appear to beg for cash, as such.
"New Atheists" don't ever appear to credit Islam with any good texts, but they certainly do exist. Perhaps Sunni Man can make some suggestions to eventually go into our belief system's book. His family might come up with some great wording (we believe in them!), and/or maybe he can quote some great stuff from the hadith, or from an Imam, etc.

See, Sunni Man is capable of coming up with better wording, I believe, than, say, "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" - Psalm 137:9. I believe in him, so why would I not want his input on improving our belief system? The Bible (in Revelation) won't let Sunni Man improve the Bible....there's a better way, guys.

Little one's not human babies. Psalms 137 is speaking about spiritual little one's brought forth in Babylon aka confusion.

 

[ding]

The man being prosecuted in Denmark had burnt a Quran.

That is blasphemy and he should be severely punished. .....

Scientific Humanism is more, well, tolerant than that - can we agree that tolerance of people giving their opinions (even if "blasphemous") is a good thing, even when we really really disagree with what they say?
"When in doubt, err on the side of freedom" - The Book of Scientific Humamism

I can't think of a more dangerous religion than humanism. The last time we had that 200 million people were murdered.

Yes, we strongly agree with each other that totalitarian dictators (yes, even secular ones) are not what's best for the world!

Fortunately I'm not a communist, or approve of dictatorships (Jesus approved of totalitarian political schemes and didn't believe in democracy, so SH doesn't bring forward those parts of the Bible, but does bring forward "love your neighbor" - Jesus got some things right and some wrong.)

Fortunately my belief system values freedom/democracy more than Christianity, Islam, etc do, in fact more than any other overall belief system I've ever heard of (sorry, communists)....here is the #1 "Commandment" of SH:
1. Believe in freedom:
a. Political (secular democracy)
b. Religious
c. Freedom of speech (vs. being overly politically-correct, etc.)
Center for Scientific Humanism: The Ten Commandments of Scientific Humanism

Can you and I agree that we love freedom so much that we agree that this is a striking improvement over the Bible that does approve of, say, beating slaves, but does not mention democracy? And is best for the world (over the largely-well intended Bible, even?)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Jesus wasn't political at all. His message was a personal message not a societal message.
The thing is that militant atheism leads to communism. You can't have a world based on materialism any other way.

Our belief system is fortunately not "militant".

It can't end any other way.

 

[ding]

The man being prosecuted in Denmark had burnt a Quran.

That is blasphemy and he should be severely punished. .....

Scientific Humanism is more, well, tolerant than that - can we agree that tolerance of people giving their opinions (even if "blasphemous") is a good thing, even when we really really disagree with what they say?
"When in doubt, err on the side of freedom" - The Book of Scientific Humamism

I can't think of a more dangerous religion than humanism. The last time we had that 200 million people were murdered.

One might think it's a "religion", sure, but it's actually not, my friend. SH is not a "religion", but is, yes, an overall belief system. Let me prove that to you: "religions" seem to almost all have unscientific things in them, but, uh, SCIENTIFIC Humanism (surprise, surprise!) does not have unscientific things in it.

The #2 "commandment" of the SH 10 "Commandments" is:
2. Be extremely skeptical of all supernatural-related claims.
For the answers to Universe/Nature look to evidence-based scientific-inquiry (current and future progress,) and human reason.


You deserve a scientifically-correct belief system. If "god" exists then he would have created science....so why not follow his science ("walking on water", and a man living inside a fish for 3 days is not scientific, of course - so we don't bring those parts forward...."love your neighbor"(?) - yes, bring that part forward.

And bring forward the best parts of Sunni Man's great book (Qur'an). One of the top 5 things in Islam is Zakat (charity), and that's better than Christianity because charity is not in the top 5, nor the top 10, Commandments. But it is indeed in the top 10 of Scientific Humanism's top 10, so SH and Islam are better than the Bible in this one regard (no offense to Christians,however):
8. Do charity/volunteer work.

Sounds like a religion to me.

 

[Joy4Uall]

No matter how you slice-em & dice-em..... old or new....mean or nice.

When you really get down to it, Humanists are just your typical garden variety atheists. ....

This one seems to quote your fav book though and is seeking just a little tiny bit of financial support. Are you sure its' not an Islam brother or sister working an angle to get you to really get your credit card or paypal account ready?

They don't appear to beg for cash, as such.
"New Atheists" don't ever appear to credit Islam with any good texts, but they certainly do exist. Perhaps Sunni Man can make some suggestions to eventually go into our belief system's book. His family might come up with some great wording (we believe in them!), and/or maybe he can quote some great stuff from the hadith, or from an Imam, etc.

See, Sunni Man is capable of coming up with better wording, I believe, than, say, "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" - Psalm 137:9. I believe in him, so why would I not want his input on improving our belief system? The Bible (in Revelation) won't let Sunni Man improve the Bible....there's a better way, guys.

Little one's not human babies. Psalms 137 is speaking about spiritual little one's brought forth in Babylon aka confusion.

View attachment 121143

Even if you are correct it has confused billions of readers - maybe kept some from believing the Bible is ethical, so they didn't become Christians, so they are allgedly going to burn, burn, burn ("hell".)
Can we agree that a better way, for humanity, would have been if they had been clearer in this communication? Scientific Humanism tries to be the best communicated belief system of all time.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Scientific Humanism is more, well, tolerant than that - can we agree that tolerance of people giving their opinions (even if "blasphemous") is a good thing, even when we really really disagree with what they say?
"When in doubt, err on the side of freedom" - The Book of Scientific Humamism

I can't think of a more dangerous religion than humanism. The last time we had that 200 million people were murdered.

Yes, we strongly agree with each other that totalitarian dictators (yes, even secular ones) are not what's best for the world!

Fortunately I'm not a communist, or approve of dictatorships (Jesus approved of totalitarian political schemes and didn't believe in democracy, so SH doesn't bring forward those parts of the Bible, but does bring forward "love your neighbor" - Jesus got some things right and some wrong.)

Fortunately my belief system values freedom/democracy more than Christianity, Islam, etc do, in fact more than any other overall belief system I've ever heard of (sorry, communists)....here is the #1 "Commandment" of SH:
1. Believe in freedom:
a. Political (secular democracy)
b. Religious
c. Freedom of speech (vs. being overly politically-correct, etc.)
Center for Scientific Humanism: The Ten Commandments of Scientific Humanism

Can you and I agree that we love freedom so much that we agree that this is a striking improvement over the Bible that does approve of, say, beating slaves, but does not mention democracy? And is best for the world (over the largely-well intended Bible, even?)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Jesus wasn't political at all. His message was a personal message not a societal message.
The thing is that militant atheism leads to communism. You can't have a world based on materialism any other way.

Our belief system is fortunately not "militant".

It can't end any other way.

We have faith in humanity - just because something bad may have happened in the past doesn't necessarily mean it will happen in the future. Humans, if they allow their belief system to grow and improve like SH does (Christians/Muslims will eventually see the benefits of that, I believe in them), are capable of incredible things. Have faith in humanity, ding!

Have a great week.

 

[Joy4Uall]

The man being prosecuted in Denmark had burnt a Quran.

That is blasphemy and he should be severely punished. .....

Scientific Humanism is more, well, tolerant than that - can we agree that tolerance of people giving their opinions (even if "blasphemous") is a good thing, even when we really really disagree with what they say?
"When in doubt, err on the side of freedom" - The Book of Scientific Humamism

I can't think of a more dangerous religion than humanism. The last time we had that 200 million people were murdered.

One might think it's a "religion", sure, but it's actually not, my friend. SH is not a "religion", but is, yes, an overall belief system. Let me prove that to you: "religions" seem to almost all have unscientific things in them, but, uh, SCIENTIFIC Humanism (surprise, surprise!) does not have unscientific things in it.

The #2 "commandment" of the SH 10 "Commandments" is:
2. Be extremely skeptical of all supernatural-related claims.
For the answers to Universe/Nature look to evidence-based scientific-inquiry (current and future progress,) and human reason.


You deserve a scientifically-correct belief system. If "god" exists then he would have created science....so why not follow his science ("walking on water", and a man living inside a fish for 3 days is not scientific, of course - so we don't bring those parts forward...."love your neighbor"(?) - yes, bring that part forward.

And bring forward the best parts of Sunni Man's great book (Qur'an). One of the top 5 things in Islam is Zakat (charity), and that's better than Christianity because charity is not in the top 5, nor the top 10, Commandments. But it is indeed in the top 10 of Scientific Humanism's top 10, so SH and Islam are better than the Bible in this one regard (no offense to Christians,however):
8. Do charity/volunteer work.

Sounds like a religion to me.

A science-based, evidence-based overall belief system, based on reason and compassion. Because of this Scientific Humanists can't bring forward "kill gays" of the Bible, not Q4:34 ("beat women") of the Qur'an, nor the "think like us or our invisible friend in the sky will torture you forever!" type of wording. Only love and compassion make it into our religion, uh, er, overall belief system. :-D

 

[Joy4Uall]

I believe that your children are smart enough to improve on the part that says that women only get HALF the inheritance of a man - don't you?

#2) The reason a man gets more inheritance than a woman. Is because in Islam he has the financial responsibility to take care of his parents in their old age. The woman doesn't have that burden. So now you know......

That is outdated now, because women have the ability, if they choose, to make almost as much money as men nowadays (and obviously some women make the same or way more than men.) SH grows, and changes, and improves - so it's the best role model for people. Treating men and women basically equally is generally the best way to go. I think Muslim women will be especially in love with the principles ("base things on merit, not on what's between the legs") of Scientific Humanism.

 

[RodISHI]

Can we agree that a better way, for humanity, would have been if they had been clearer in this communication? Scientific Humanism tries to be the best communicated belief system of all time.

The majority of humankind has progress somewhat over that last few millennia despite the confusion that has been put forth through exalted religions. Communicating what God and his son are takes at the very least a person looking for it in truth and the spirit to accept truth when it comes.

The confusion comes when humans believe they know best and cannot contain their own desires for control. Humanism can allow for things that go against the nature of the spirit without regard to the spirit that is instilled in the humans from the manufacturer. I can think of a lot of scientific devices offhand that people came up with in the quest to over ride nature in their call for humanity that has resulted in disastrous consequences. In a humanistic type setting people are taught to trust in their carnal instincts which inhibits the instincts of the spirit of the son of God in them. I am reluctant to agree with you.

An example of a humanist approach would be admonishing a child when the child tells a person outside of the core of the family to stay away from them. The adults believe that is a rude thing for the child to do. The child by its own natural God given instincts knows the person is a danger to itself but the humanistic values that were instilled via tradition tells the child they are in error. The spirit in the child that it was born with to know a danger when it is near is inhibited and the child grows farther and farther away from those natural instincts of God's love in its conscience as it is taught to merely believe the humanist ways. Ultimately the child rebels and the scientific humanist seeks a way to inhibit the rebellious nature the child has. From that point things can go all sorts of place which do not serve in humankind's best interest.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Can we agree that a better way, for humanity, would have been if they had been clearer in this communication? Scientific Humanism tries to be the best communicated belief system of all time.

The majority of humankind has progress somewhat over that last few millennia despite the confusion that has been put forth through exalted religions. Communicating what God and his son are takes at the very least a person looking for it in truth and the spirit to accept truth when it comes.

The confusion comes when humans believe they know best and cannot contain their own desires for control. Humanism can allow for things that go against the nature of the spirit without regard to the spirit that is instilled in the humans from the manufacturer. I can think of a lot of scientific devices offhand that people came up with in the quest to over ride nature in their call for humanity that has resulted in disastrous consequences. In a humanistic type setting people are taught to trust in their carnal instincts which inhibits the instincts of the spirit of the son of God in them. I am reluctant to agree with you.

An example of a humanist approach would be admonishing a child when the child tells a person outside of the core of the family to stay away from them. The adults believe that is a rude thing for the child to do. The child by its own natural God given instincts knows the person is a danger to itself but the humanistic values that were instilled via tradition tells the child they are in error. The spirit in the child that it was born with to know a danger when it is near is inhibited and the child grows farther and farther away from those natural instincts of God's love in its conscience as it is taught to merely believe the humanist ways. Ultimately the child rebels and the scientific humanist seeks a way to inhibit the rebellious nature the child has. From that point things can go all sorts of place which do not serve in humankind's best interest.

You can't agree that god should have been a better communicator? Let me ask you to start a thread asking "what did he really mean by 'it's as hard for a rich man to get into heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?"
The variety of answers will convince you that he should have communicated far far better.

 

[RodISHI]

Can we agree that a better way, for humanity, would have been if they had been clearer in this communication? Scientific Humanism tries to be the best communicated belief system of all time.

The majority of humankind has progress somewhat over that last few millennia despite the confusion that has been put forth through exalted religions. Communicating what God and his son are takes at the very least a person looking for it in truth and the spirit to accept truth when it comes.

The confusion comes when humans believe they know best and cannot contain their own desires for control. Humanism can allow for things that go against the nature of the spirit without regard to the spirit that is instilled in the humans from the manufacturer. I can think of a lot of scientific devices offhand that people came up with in the quest to over ride nature in their call for humanity that has resulted in disastrous consequences. In a humanistic type setting people are taught to trust in their carnal instincts which inhibits the instincts of the spirit of the son of God in them. I am reluctant to agree with you.

An example of a humanist approach would be admonishing a child when the child tells a person outside of the core of the family to stay away from them. The adults believe that is a rude thing for the child to do. The child by its own natural God given instincts knows the person is a danger to itself but the humanistic values that were instilled via tradition tells the child they are in error. The spirit in the child that it was born with to know a danger when it is near is inhibited and the child grows farther and farther away from those natural instincts of God's love in its conscience as it is taught to merely believe the humanist ways. Ultimately the child rebels and the scientific humanist seeks a way to inhibit the rebellious nature the child has. From that point things can go all sorts of place which do not serve in humankind's best interest.

You can't agree that god should have been a better communicator? Let me ask you to start a thread asking "what did he really mean by 'it's as hard for a rich man to get into heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?"
The variety of answers will convince you that he should have communicated far far better.

If a person is living by their own precepts (with their own carnal desires coming first) and they are looking in the wrong place do you think that is God's mistake or the person's?

The rich man parable is fairly simple. 'If you care about your worldly things more than you care about me it will be pretty hard to find my kingdom in your self'.


ps... the people who claimed to be God's messengers do they have any culpability in your thought process?

 

[ding]

Can we agree that a better way, for humanity, would have been if they had been clearer in this communication? Scientific Humanism tries to be the best communicated belief system of all time.

The majority of humankind has progress somewhat over that last few millennia despite the confusion that has been put forth through exalted religions. Communicating what God and his son are takes at the very least a person looking for it in truth and the spirit to accept truth when it comes.

The confusion comes when humans believe they know best and cannot contain their own desires for control. Humanism can allow for things that go against the nature of the spirit without regard to the spirit that is instilled in the humans from the manufacturer. I can think of a lot of scientific devices offhand that people came up with in the quest to over ride nature in their call for humanity that has resulted in disastrous consequences. In a humanistic type setting people are taught to trust in their carnal instincts which inhibits the instincts of the spirit of the son of God in them. I am reluctant to agree with you.

An example of a humanist approach would be admonishing a child when the child tells a person outside of the core of the family to stay away from them. The adults believe that is a rude thing for the child to do. The child by its own natural God given instincts knows the person is a danger to itself but the humanistic values that were instilled via tradition tells the child they are in error. The spirit in the child that it was born with to know a danger when it is near is inhibited and the child grows farther and farther away from those natural instincts of God's love in its conscience as it is taught to merely believe the humanist ways. Ultimately the child rebels and the scientific humanist seeks a way to inhibit the rebellious nature the child has. From that point things can go all sorts of place which do not serve in humankind's best interest.

You can't agree that god should have been a better communicator? Let me ask you to start a thread asking "what did he really mean by 'it's as hard for a rich man to get into heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?"
The variety of answers will convince you that he should have communicated far far better.

I agree with rod's interpretation. The communication is fine.