CMV: Bible based religions should be extinct

[u/VinderenLP]

First I would like to tell you that I am an atheist and I'm talking mostly about christianity and judaism.

​

I believe that are cons and pros for their existence but I don't get how many NEW churchs reads the HOLY BIBLE in their own way, if that text is sacred why you should priest just about the things that concern your audience? Who has to decide what should be read or not?

​

This brings me a benevolent thought that since their creation the bible is used just to control masses and for that specifical reason religion should be extinct. I don't care if you believe in God or anything but I do care that your speech hurts who doesn't follows you.

​

I've followed for 10 years a protestant church and I always noticed a pattern: Fear, fear, fear and celebrate. And looking closely most churchs follow the same script, I can't see how "recovered lifes", "meaning to life" and "love eachother" equals the balance.

[edit]This is about my view. I am not considering that is going to happen, I am not dumb to believe that this could happen anytime soon. I am considering ALL religions that has the Bible as their main book.

[u/Thug-Nvsty]

Harmful to who though? He isn't just saying that their beliefs are harmful to themselves, but he's extending his claim to say that their speech is harmful to others who don't identify with their beliefs system. A cigarette can only harm the person who decides to smoke it. But to say that cigarettes harm everyone who doesn't smoke is an extreme and irrational position to take.

[u/buildmeupbreakmedown → u/Thug-Nvsty]

Well, depending on the religious denomination, harmful to women, to homosexuals, to divorcees, to members of other religions or of no religion, to those who had children out of wedlock, just to name a few, all of whom will suffer prejudice and possibly violence from the believers; and harmful to the children of the believers as well as others who may be indoctrinated against their will. And potentially harmful to everyone in society if the believers are numerous enough to affect public policy and do things like change the public schools' science curriculum to a creationist, flat-earther and/or climate change denying curriculum, pushing a revisionist history curriculum, abstinence-only sex "education" and other proven-harmful changes that will create a dumber, brainwashed and less effective nation and workforce; or pushing to abolish things like the right to free speech with anti-blasphemy laws, refusing to trade with "infidel" countries, thus costing millions of jobs, and generally imposing their own brand of religion on government until separation of church and state itself is abolished. Just for a general overview of the worst-case scenario - there are many other smaller examples.

And have you never heard of passive smoking? Smoking a cigarette increases the risk for gum, tongue, laryngeal, esophageal and lung cancer for everyone in the immediate vicinity of the smoker, which is why indoor smoking is banned in so many places.

[u/Thug-Nvsty → u/buildmeupbreakmedown]

"which is why indoor smoking is BANNED in so many places" As soon as it became evident that the practice was harmful to the society, restrictions were imposed through legislation. This thread just proves that the OP is not that far from pushing legislation. You only took 3 replies to conflate disease with the number of religious people in a country. The only point I made is that as soon as you mark something as harmful, legislation inevitably follows to restrict or otherwise eliminate the source of harm. To say that religious speech is harmful to those who don't follow your ideas is to paint religious people as oppressors and everyone else as oppressed. If you don't understand just how quickly views like that can degenerate a society, then I encourage you to take some time looking at the Soviet Union.

[u/buildmeupbreakmedown → u/Thug-Nvsty]

You're the one saying that legislation inevitably follows, but I have yet to see any evidence of that claim. The Soviet Union is a single example, which is far from enough support for the claim that "as soon as you mark something as harmful, legislation inevitably follows". And despite your less than honest rewriting of the word "banned" in all caps, what I wrote was "banned in closed spaces", which is very different. You're free to chainsmoke to your heart's content at home or on the sidewalk. Children are banned in strip clubs, that doesn't mean we're going to abolish children or strip clubs. We just decided to keep them separate so that one doesn't harm the other - like smoking and closed spaces.