Is abortion rational?

@Ozandy, I hope you don't throw your latte's at us when we refuse to submit to your Maoist pipe dream.

Stalin tried to eliminate religion and failed. What would you do differently to the Soviets? Bigger gullags?

"Burning books is NOT an act of rationality, but of provocation fuelled by ignorance and hate."

Burning books is an expression of opinion, and when everyone can express their opinions without fear of reprisals, the world will be a much better place. Knuckling under to the demands of religious (or other) extremists just encourages them to demand even more next time.

"As a non-theist myself, I have no problem with theists because the average theist is no different to the average non-theist except for a singular belief."

But that singular belief tells them they are entitled to impose their own standards of behaviour on others without any obligation to justify them rationally. I regard that behaviour as 'ignorant and dangerous'. Don't you?

"Stalin tried to eliminate religion and failed. What would you do differently to the Soviets? Bigger gullags?"
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Friday, 24 September 2010 11:27:09 AM

Elimination of religion is not likely or desirable. Yet,the world has grown-up considerably since former church-school educated and seminarian Stalin was on the scene with his firm attitudes and approaches to humanity and varied attitudes and approaches to religion, including revisiting it in Leningrad in WW2 and personally.

There is no harm and a range of benefits in teaching comparative religion, not the least being a better appreciation of literature. The author's case is proved by some of the comments here.

@Jon J, “Burning books is an expression of opinion, and when everyone can express their opinions without fear of reprisals, the world will be a much better place. Knuckling under to the demands of religious (or other) extremists just encourages them to demand even more next time.”

A statement of words is an expression of opinion, the burning books is a physical act of aggression, intolerance and provocation. It’s not “opinion”, it’s demonstrative of lack of control of emotions with the desire to provoke.

“But that singular belief tells them they are entitled to impose their own standards of behaviour on others without any obligation to justify them rationally. I regard that behaviour as 'ignorant and dangerous'. Don't you?”

No, that’s only the view of some fundamentalists, just as the burning of religious books is an act of fundamentalist atheists. There is no requisite of imposing anything, other than those individuals that wish to impose any form of thinking or opinion. You cannot brand the many for the views and actions of a few. What you’re saying is tantamount to “all atheists want to burn religious books”, which clearly is not the case. So why brand all theists with the same brush, and imply that they all wish to impose their belief? Most that have a belief, merely wish to share their experience in the hope that their audience will find similar “rewards”. There’s no harm in that, and no difference than someone making recommendation of a good restaurant or car…it’s all subjective and relative to the person(s) involved. If you don’t have that belief, or taste, then fine. But to suggest shutting the restaurant because you don’t like the food is puerile. Burning books because you don’t like what is within them, is just as infantile.

In short, can’t you see that the burning of books is identical to imposing one’s belief? You’re actually advocating to do the very thing that you are saying you despise. By the burning of books, you are attempting to impose a belief of non-belief by the depravation of information…imposing your belief of non-theism.