Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
davros of skaro

Project Bread & Roses

50 posts in this topic

Can you imagine going to jail, or being put to death for thought crimes?

Can you imagine walking down the street and seeing Sat Dishes being crushed by a Tank?

Check out the vid & links in the description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people want to live in the middle ages.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iNYAkvu3Nf4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us that may not be able to watch videos, could you please give a summary of what they are about so we all know what this thread is about please davros?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us that may not be able to watch videos, could you please give a summary of what they are about so we all know what this thread is about please davros?

Some members of the council of exMuslims are planning to broadcast Satelite TV programs into oppressive Islamic countries.

Programs on freethought, and secular thinking which these governments ban.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good show. If the Abrahamic religions are so great and wonderful, then they should be able stand the test of reason and free thinking, rather than being crammed down everyone's throat by thought police. Theocracy is just another from of fascism.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about this on the way to work this morning. Very pleased to this initiative moving forward. For those so inclined, they do need financial support. I've already made my gift.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some members of the council of exMuslims are planning to broadcast Satelite TV programs into oppressive Islamic countries.

Programs on freethought, and secular thinking which these governments ban.

No one can stop/ban secular or free thinking, only the expression, broadcasting, or sharing of such thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds like a good show. If the Abrahamic religions are so great and wonderful, then they should be able stand the test of reason and free thinking, rather than being crammed down everyone's throat by thought police. Theocracy is just another from of fascism.

The implication here is that free thinkers wont be religious. Free thinking can well lead people to spiritual and religious conclusions, precisely because it IS free. Of course some people (and governments)want to stop the free construction of religious/spiritual thinking and its dissemination from person to person . Are you 9in favour of freedom for all free thinkers to express and disseminate their thoughts or only secular free thoughts.? Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is a form of power, if you can wield it, then you can control the thoughts and actions of it's followers. In my subjective point of view religion is the worlds first government. I hope they succeed in shaking up the paradigm.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can stop/ban secular or free thinking, only the expression, broadcasting, or sharing of such thoughts.

Nothing can stop you from being a silly nilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nothing can stop you from being a silly nilly.

That's because I am a free thinker.

And in Australia its a silly willy. Both are possibly derivatives of silly billy.

But of course if you would like to give a reasoned argument against the truth /logic of my post, please do so.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The implication here is that free thinkers wont be religious. Free thinking can well lead people to spiritual and religious conclusions, precisely because it IS free. Of course some people (and governments)want to stop the free construction of religious/spiritual thinking and its dissemination from person to person . Are you 9in favour of freedom for all free thinkers to express and disseminate their thoughts or only secular free thoughts.?

Secular doesn't mean atheist. Secular free thought means any type thought not having to do with religion or spirituality. Seems to me these people in the video are trying to inform people about other ways of thinking of the universe and its structure other than religion. Theocracies like Iran and Arabia are doing their best to brainwash their citizens to only believe in one way to think. If you lived there you would not be able to tell people about Christianity. You seem to think that is a good thing to brainwash people into believing in religion. Read my Salman Rushdie quote, below, I believe that with my whole heart. Free thought is just that, free to believe and think as you wish. You can't do that if you don't have freedom of information and are only given the information the theocracy whats you to have. In true secular society religion is not banned it is just irrelevant to civil law and government. What you think and believe is your own problem, not the governments. I am not an atheist, I am a Pagan Druid and I want to be free explore my path as I wish, too. People in strict theocracies don't have that option and I think they should. We might end up with better world.

I don't know what is wrong with the site that some of my post gets bold print. Then you can't change it in edit.

Edited by GreenmansGod
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Secular doesn't mean atheist. Secular free thought means any type thought not having to do with religion or spirituality. Seems to me these people in the video are trying to inform people about other ways of thinking of the universe and its structure other than religion. Theocracies like Iran and Arabia are doing their best to brainwash their citizens to only believe in one way to think. If you lived there you would not be able to tell people about Christianity. You seem to think that is a good thing to brainwash people into believing in religion. Read my Salman Rushdie quote, below, I believe that with my whole heart. Free thought is just that, free to believe and think as you wish. You can't do that if you don't have freedom of information and are only given the information the theocracy whats you to have. In true secular society religion is not banned it is just irrelevant to civil law and government. What you think and believe is your own problem, not the governments. I am not an atheist, I am a Pagan Druid and I want to be free explore my path as I wish, too. People in strict theocracies don't have that option and I think they should. We might end up with better world.

I don't know what is wrong with the site that some of my post gets bold print. Then you can't change it in edit.

I don't believe in brainwashing people, but then it doesn't work except under extraordinary physical circumstances I am a Christian because I live among Christians. Somewhere else I would be something else. Nothing can stop god and I connecting with each other or me communicating with god .

Every person on earth is free to think and believe as they wish. They sometimes are prevented from external acts of worship, but no one can see or stop an internal act.

Freedom of information is another issue I do not think any material, including sexual material, should be banned from anyone, but that is not a religious issue. Because religious belief and connection to god comes from within, one doesn't need access to religious material to be a believer. One MIGHT need access to atheistic material to become an atheist but probably not. Governments have a right and an obligation to control behaviours of people which they find destructive or opposed to their principles of governance. But no one could stop you thinking as, and thus being, a pagan druid.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every person on earth is free to think and believe as they wish. They sometimes are prevented from external acts of worship, but no one can see or stop an internal act.

Except when indoctrination is all inclusive in one's life. I've known some people who are not able to even conceive of thinking freely, their religious indoctrination goes so deep.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GreenmansGod, once you freely choose to accept "a set of ideas", don't you bind yourself to that system of belief?

And--regarding Rushdie's quote, does "to be immune" from imply that it can't be criticized or shouldn't be criticized?

(I have trouble with that font-bolding thing as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To be immune from" means to be protected from. How freely can you accept "a set of ideas" if you are only shown one set of the ideas. How many Christians tell their kid something is true, because it is in the Bible. "Jesus loves me, yes I know, cause the Bible tells me so..." You have a kid sing that enough times they start to believe it. That is indoctornation, add some more little didities to it you start brainwashing. Binding yourself to a belief system without flexibility has a lot of pitfalls. Everything changes, it is built into this Universe. There is a big wide world of ideas to explore why limit yourself to one set. You freely choose a path you should also be free to walk away form it and have the information to make an informed decision, too.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.” Salman Rushdie

In the context of our discussion, that “set of ideas” is implied to be Christianity. So, who has declared Christianity to be immune from criticism? Besides, some of the best criticism and hilarious satire of Christianity comes from within Christianity itself. Yes, there is even contempt from one particular subset for another subset.

You’d be surprised how many children turn away from God when they hit adolescence, and later on when they move to attend college.

Let me ask some questions. In your system for freedom of thought, who would be responsible for teaching about all possible world views? Who would oversee the system to insure fair representation? What happens when someone declares Jeffrey Dahmer’s world view to be a valid religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To be immune from" means to be protected from. How freely can you accept "a set of ideas" if you are only shown one set of the ideas. How many Christians tell their kid something is true, because it is in the Bible. "Jesus loves me, yes I know, cause the Bible tells me so..." You have a kid sing that enough times they start to believe it. That is indoctornation, add some more little didities to it you start brainwashing. Binding yourself to a belief system without flexibility has a lot of pitfalls. Everything changes, it is built into this Universe. There is a big wide world of ideas to explore why limit yourself to one set. You freely choose a path you should also be free to walk away form it and have the information to make an informed decision, too.

On the other hand, perhaps said parents have experienced the love of Jesus themselves and have decided that such teachings are something you would want to impart on a loved one, especially your own child. They might even feel that withholding such knowledge would constitute a form of child neglect, if not abuse.

I would certainly prefer a world where all forms of thought are presented along with the reasons for each belief system and then an individual can make up their own mind. Too often such freedom of though and ideas rabidly offends one side or the other and that really is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

“The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.” Salman Rushdie

In the context of our discussion, that “set of ideas” is implied to be Christianity. So, who has declared Christianity to be immune from criticism? Besides, some of the best criticism and hilarious satire of Christianity comes from within Christianity itself. Yes, there is even contempt from one particular subset for another subset.

You’d be surprised how many children turn away from God when they hit adolescence, and later on when they move to attend college.

Let me ask some questions. In your system for freedom of thought, who would be responsible for teaching about all possible world views? Who would oversee the system to insure fair representation? What happens when someone declares Jeffrey Dahmer’s world view to be a valid religion?

Salman Rushdie was talking about Islam. I tend to lump all the Abrahamic religions the same and for the most part they are. The video in the OP is talking about Islam and people in hard line theocracies in the Middle East getting information about science and philosophies other than Islam. These people can't even have a satellite dish, because their Government doesn't want them to know anything but what they feed them. It's like having the only channel being the Christian network. One thing I learned from Fox News is if you tell a lie over and over people will believe the lie and except as truth. If I had the money I would donate to the folk in the video.

I am not surprised by how many leave Christianity and come back to it. It shows the power of indoctrination. You would be surprised how many become Pagans and we don't seek converts. They just seem to show up when they hear the Earth's call. Some of us are Pagan before we know what a Pagan is. No red herrings and appeals to fear needed.

Edited by GreenmansGod
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, then -- I appear to have gone off topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except when indoctrination is all inclusive in one's life. I've known some people who are not able to even conceive of thinking freely, their religious indoctrination goes so deep.

While cultural mores can be pervasive and influential, they cannot physically prevent free thinking or the working of logic and extrapolation etc. It requires the intellectual assent/consent of a person for them to accept another person's thoughts as their own. That consent may not be informed but it must be mentally given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"To be immune from" means to be protected from. How freely can you accept "a set of ideas" if you are only shown one set of the ideas. How many Christians tell their kid something is true, because it is in the Bible. "Jesus loves me, yes I know, cause the Bible tells me so..." You have a kid sing that enough times they start to believe it. That is indoctornation, add some more little didities to it you start brainwashing. Binding yourself to a belief system without flexibility has a lot of pitfalls. Everything changes, it is built into this Universe. There is a big wide world of ideas to explore why limit yourself to one set. You freely choose a path you should also be free to walk away form it and have the information to make an informed decision, too.

People form their own ideas all the time and children routinely reject a parents beliefs values or lifestyle.

Teaching anything, from maths to religion is not indoctrinating or brainwashing; it is the sharing of knowledge ideas and beliefs. No one can compel another to accept their own ides in their mind. A person will accept and believe a concept which works for them either logically or practically and reject those which do not. While it is a good idea to explore ideas concepts philosophies etc., eventually one has to chose a set for oneself.

This is best done early because beliefs underlie every value we hold, and values form the basis of morality, and hence behaviour. A child, or indeed any person, with no fixed values moralities or codes of behaviour is a danger to them selves and to others. This is why we teach children; beliefs values moralities at a young age, rather than allow them to evolve their own from experience. Nursery rhymes and children's stories were traditionally devised and used as teaching tools for moral beliefs and behaviours.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Muslim TV programs they have now for Kids is to die for.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HCnqD1PX3yQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While cultural mores can be pervasive and influential, they cannot physically prevent free thinking or the working of logic and extrapolation etc. It requires the intellectual assent/consent of a person for them to accept another person's thoughts as their own. That consent may not be informed but it must be mentally given.

The problem with your statement is that the intellectual consent given is part of the acceptance of another person's thoughts as their own. Also, I don't think the intellect plays a major role in the acceptance of some cultural system of thought. The intellect is purposely discouraged in these matters.

Do you really believe no one can physically prevent free thinking or the working logic and extrapolation etc.? Any indoctrination of a cultural or belief system is inclusive, in that the indoctrination itself is designed ot abolish free thinking.

I think if we have a personal benevolent morality free from external political, cultural and religious authority and convention, we can become autonomous human beings that, looking around at the way indoctrinated people behave, is a good idea.

When we accept and obey any authority we surrender our capacity for free thought.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The problem with your statement is that the intellectual consent given is part of the acceptance of another person's thoughts as their own. Also, I don't think the intellect plays a major role in the acceptance of some cultural system of thought. The intellect is purposely discouraged in these matters.

Do you really believe no one can physically prevent free thinking or the working logic and extrapolation etc.? Any indoctrination of a cultural or belief system is inclusive, in that the indoctrination itself is designed ot abolish free thinking.

I think if we have a personal benevolent morality free from external political, cultural and religious authority and convention, we can become autonomous human beings that, looking around at the way indoctrinated people behave, is a good idea.

When we accept and obey any authority we surrender our capacity for free thought.

My conclusions on this are in part based on personal subjective experience but also on an academic understanding of the nature of human socialisation and cognition I KNOW that all humans are cable of 'free thinking ' and this can not be physically stopped except with extreme physical methods such as sensory deprivation, because it is a function of every human brain.

Everyone is socially conditioned by the society in which they live and most accept the mores and standards values and attitudes of this society for many reasons. This is NOT brain washing or indoctrination just a product of natural socialisation.

But for one person to accept another person's values requires intellectual consent. Any mental resistance will prevent the acceptance of another person's ideas. The seed for such resistance can come from any of many small individual points a long a persons timeline of life. This consent is often not informed because none of us live in a fully informed environment even when we think we do. Attempted indoctrination of one idea or concept cant stop a mind from thinking or processing and developing alternate beliefs and values History sociology and human cognition all demonstrate this.

.And indoctrination doesn't work unless the person being indoctrinated finds some real worth or value in the ideas and concepts being "indoctrinated" If these are clearly illogical or lead to poor outcomes for an individual they will not take hold in that individual.

I think if we have a personal benevolent morality free from external political, cultural and religious authority and convention, we can become autonomous human beings that, looking around at the way indoctrinated people behave, is a good idea

The bolded is practically impossible.

First, how does each individual form a value line of priorities on which to base a coherent set of moralities and behaviours when they are very young, and have no knowledge or experience with past successes and failures, and when the part of their brain responsible for this type of thought has not even developed yet.. or to put it in simple terms. Without external morality from some authority, who teaches a child it is wrong to steal, and why it is wrong?

Second, what happens in a society when every individual has different personal moralities and values, and hence behaviours.

Third, if people chose not to be benevolent who controls them and how?

And lastly how does one isolate a child from all political cultural and religious authority and convention, and would this truly be a good thing with good outcomes, if one could. It might well result in a lord of the flies scenario where the young, bereft of the wisdom of the ages, create their own rules or anarchy.

It is the role and duty/responsibility of parents teachers and all other authorities to pass onto the young the codified beliefs and practices of a society, and to enforce these until children are old enough to take responsibility for their own actions. One cannot wait until the human brain matures (in the twenties) to begin developing philosophical based values, ethical thinking, and moralities.

Your last statement When we accept and obey any authority we surrender our capacity for free thought. is that of a child, or an anarchist. Society provides the ability for people to be free through its rules and regulations; free from victimisation, tyranny and the rule of the strong over the defenceless. Ironical but true.

We trade off absolute personal freedom for the luxury of living in a community and all the protections and benefits this gives us. If anyone wants to be totally free, they must live alone otherwise they will have to compromise their absolute freedom, even if living with just one other person

Alogical and thoughtful free thinker will generally accept and obey authority where they see good and logical reasons to do so. In a democracy our duty to obey laws is greater because they are OUR laws created through those we elect to represent us Sometimes those laws contravene our personal moralities and then we must decide whether to obey them anyway or break them and accept the consequences of the law. (but one must always acknowledge there will be sanctions and consequences for breaking a law, not expect to break a law and not suffer any consequence or sanction .)

One can also work to change laws one disagrees with.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.