Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

You showed a difference all right but that difference is completely irrelevant in the sense of what is right or what is wrong about insults.

You don't get me. I always said that insulting is always wrong, always. However, I don't want to forbid it.

That's the reason why poor countries have more religious people and not that they are less educated as it is often mistaken.

The reason is that they need hope that their lives will improve. Something to rely on. And that's nice. As long as you don't come near me and start saying your god is there, if I want it or not. Religion is private matter, keep it that way.

You don't get me. I always said that insulting is always wrong, always. However, I don't want to forbid it.

I understand that. You just didn't provide proof why would that be good and necessary. Throwing litter in the street is also wrong and it is forbidden. Wrong - forbiden, right - allowed.

The reason is that they need hope that their lives will improve. Something to rely on. And that's nice. As long as you don't come near me and start saying your god is there, if I want it or not. Religion is private matter, keep it that way.

Now that's silly. Religion is not private. Even atheism is not private. Keeping religion private is a way to extinguish it. Imagine if the 11 apostles concluded that what they saw and heard from the Son of God was private. That story would end then and there instead of what actually happened and that is covering the whole globe with Christianity. How would different religios communicate and understand each other if they keep themselves private?

I understand that. You just didn't provide proof why would that be good and necessary. Throwing litter in the street is also wrong and it is forbidden. Wrong - forbiden, right - allowed.

First of all (but this has nothing to do with this specific matter), there are no objective standards of what is wrong and what is right, so making right and wrong the basis of law is rather difficult. For instance, in my country, it is very wrong to say gay people are not equal (for instance in rights) with heterosexual people. However, should saying that they are not equal be forbidden? I don't think so.

Now why is this (and why don't I want to forbid insulting)? Because the right of freedom of speech is for me personally more important. I understand it is different for others, but for me, freedom of speech is quite unlimited (not completely unlimited, until you pass the border of acting, threatening or defamation). So no, I don't want the government to forbid anything that is 'wrong'. And once again, it's not because you can that you should.

Now that's silly. Religion is not private. Even atheism is not private. Keeping religion private is a way to extinguish it. Imagine if the 11 apostles concluded that what they saw and heard from the Son of God was private. That story would end then and there instead of what actually happened and that is covering the whole globe with Christianity. How would different religios communicate and understand each other if they keep themselves private?

I'm sorry, but it is very irritating when those mormons (for instance, just an example) stop you and want to explain to you the word of their god. I only laugh or make them very clear I'm not interested in their fantasy stories. I have no problem with other people being religious (everyone must make that choice for themselves), but I swear to myself - normally to God, but as there is no such thing :p - leave me alone. I've made my choice, respect that please.

OK. I do not so much insist on forbidding insults in general although some forms, as you also say, should be forbidden. I just wanted to say that using consistently insulting retorics when communicating with other worldviews is a sign of extremism. That's the whole point.

I also find some sects irritating in their approach with stopping people they don't know in the streets or coming at your door. But this is just a matter of style. I am always puzzled with the fact that this approach ever attracts anyone and it obviously does as they would not be there. Stil, these are just bad examples. They don't prove anything except how things shouldn't be done. Religion is generally not private. Otherwise it would soon be gone.

When I say religion is private, I mean that religion should not be involved in the life of people who don't want religion to be involved, like me.

Edit: and it (religion) should not get any funding of the government. In Belgium, priests are paid by the government ...
(editado)

Just wondering; How does the funding issue relate to other forms of culture and other associations?

I am against most of the funding, funding of culture including. I don't see that as a task for the government.

atheism decide that they are the ones being right

It is! There is zero prove of a god, other then a book written by man. And in normal life zero prove means that it doesn't exist until proven otherwise! Traveling in time was considered impossible, but now maybe this claim could be wrong because of prove, not because of 'Back to the Future I, II and III'.

don't need to compromise with other religions.

Atheism is NOT a religion. Until proven otherwise it's simply a fact!

Religion is generally not private.

No, and this is another 1 of the big problems! Indoctrination still continues, missionaries, religious schools etc should all be banned.

EDIT: but discussing this with a fundamentalist is absolutely pointless so I stop, better for myself.
(editado)

There is zero prove of a god

That's fine with me. Proving that God exits would take all the fun out of believing in Him. Also, it deservedly annoys people who think they are able to know everything.

Atheism is NOT a religion.

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. So, yes, atheism falls right under that definition. It's at least a religious orientation if we would insist on being precise. It's the most vague of all options but hey, that's how atheists like it: keep all the options open and avoid being wrong at any cost (even at never being right really).

No, and this is another 1 of the big problems! Indoctrination still continues, missionaries, religious schools etc should all be banned.

And you atheists are what? Vaccinated against indoctrination?

but discussing this with a fundamentalist is absolutely pointless so I stop, better for myself.

"Catch that thief!" yelled a thief. I would never ban atheism.

That's fine with me. Proving that God exits would take all the fun out of believing in Him. Also, it deservedly annoys people who think they are able to know everything.

We (atheists) don't claim to know everything. We just aren't into the little stories called religion to explain things we can't explain (yet).

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. So, yes, atheism falls right under that definition. It's at least a religious orientation if we would insist on being precise. It's the most vague of all options but hey, that's how atheists like it: keep all the options open and avoid being wrong at any cost (even at never being right really).

First of all, atheism isn't a belief system. It's a system that lacks the kind of belief that is a major factor within religion. Atheism is the lack of belief and religion, it's not a religion itself. Although most religious people like to drag it down to the level of religion.

Secondly, it's not the most vague of all options. On contrary, it's very clear: what isn't proven whatsoever isn't there until it is proven. And your remark of atheists being 'we want to avoid being wrong', that's just plain wrong. First of all, there is nothing wrong with keeping options open, and secondly, atheism doesn't even do that. It's very clear.

And you atheists are what? Vaccinated against indoctrination?

Of course not. But one hasn't got to be a genius to see indoctrination is a typical thing for religion. 'Believe or you will go to hell' doesn't ring a bell? And yes, I know not all religious people are like that (luckily!), but that doesn't make it atypical.

"Catch that thief!" yelled a thief. I would never ban atheism.

That would be stupid. Just like forbidding certain religions. I think religions will evaporate by themselves. First in the western world (where atheism is now a very common thing), later in the regions that are nowadays deeply religious (for example Middle-East or Africa). It's a process every society is going through. And the western world is developed the furthest in this process of secularity.

What about religion topic? Or god was communist :) ?

Alright, I would stop but this 1 is just to freaking funny :D

Also, it deservedly annoys people who think they are able to know everything.

LOL :D LOL :D and even more LOL :D !!! .... I AM not the 1 who needs all answers and think these can be found in an outdated book of less then 1600 pages, you are turning it around :P Hilarious (just as the rest of your post and the reason why discussing this with you is absolutely pointless)! :D

Just never forget the biblical description of 'believing':
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hope without prove, that's it, nothing more! A really great foundation for life :P

God is a dj ;-)

Jj, and listen faithless :)