Again religious topics? Do you think religious discriminations deserve a better place than any other discrimination? If you want to avoid discrimination, delete classes! Because the moment you define a believer you automatically define a non-believer (and so you create different levels between them). So , get a higher abstraction level and stop pretending a legal place, because anything could create discrimination, not only religion (sex, race, hobbies amongst them)

the problem is if we tolarate the religion, religion tolarate atheisme? imagine a asgardia school what you say at child? big bang have creat universe or god(s)?

Everyone knows it was the ceiling cat. Have you not read the lolcat bible? heathens.

And I qoute, Genesis 1:

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem. 2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

It must be true, I read it on the interwebs. And clearly, it is logic beyond critique.

Hello everyone,

I'd like to just remind everybody to remain respectful of all persons and points involved in a discussion. People live in different environments and have access to different information and upbringing.

Please keep all criticisms constructive, and keep mockeries to a minimum.

Thank you,

Tim Song

I am not mocking anyone's religion - I'm not aware of that actually being a valid religion.

I'm mocking the general premise that suggests critique to be unsuitable, regardless of any particular claim. Should one choose to present rediculous claims like the universe was indeed created by the ceiling cat then it should be expected to be met with critique. Should I begin to assert that the laws of physics are thus that should you close your eyes tight enough and spin around counter clockwise fast enough you will travel back through time to before you was born and cease to exist - would I still be granted the same safeguards with that as religion? would that be something offensive to correct?

Religion isn't something that should particularly be a factor. There is merit to the argument, or there is not. People will naturally differ in opinion on various topics. A response to such a difference that would be deemed unsuitable should be determined by the quality and content of the arguments, not the topic.

@EyeR

Couldn't have expressed it better. In a free thinking society, if you make a questionable claim (regardless of topic), be prepared to be questioned / critiqued.

BTW, you are all wrong. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe over the course of a five day bender about 5,000 years ago. The reason why there is evidence of millions of years of evolution is that the FSM planted it. Radiocarbon dating always yields false results because the FSM changes the results with His Noodly Appendage.

An individual's religion should never be made to feel insufficient or inferior to another. All persons should treat each other with respect when it comes to beliefs.

Now, if it should come up in conversation where beliefs are being discussed, people are allowed to respectfully disagree, perhaps even point out where there are discrepancies or inaccuracies in one's beliefs, but attempting to change another's beliefs should be considered a wholly abhorrent act. At that point, you are attempting to destroy they person that they are to build something more to your liking, which sounds more evil than anything else I can imagine.

You shouldn't attack a person's IDENTITY, but you can discuss, and even disagree with, their beliefs with respect.

So Phicksur, I'm interested how you would deal with a situation where you are having a conversation with someone about the shape of the Earth. However, the person you are having the conversation with genuinely believes the Earth is flat.

Do you "respecfully disagree" with them or do you try and enlighten said person with the evidence to the contrary?

There lies the difference between science and religion: one can be discussed using facts, measurements, observations and evidence. The other can not.

It's nice to say we should respect each other's beliefs, but to redefine that as not making someone feel inferior constitutes a condemnation of the majority of people's beliefs as inherently disrepectful. The majority believe everyone who disagrees with them deserves to suffer forever simply for their beliefs. Should they feel inferior simply because their beliefs declare them superior?

So Phicksur, I'm interested how you would deal with a situation where you are having a conversation with someone about the shape of the Earth. However, the person you are having the conversation with genuinely believes the Earth is flat.

Do you "respecfully disagree" with them or do you try and enlighten said person with the evidence to the contrary?

There lies the difference between science and religion: one can be discussed using facts, measurements, observations and evidence. The other can not.

On Asgardia, in orbit? I wouldd point to a window and ask if they still believe the world is flat. If they do, I would let them be on their way, recognizing they are a moron, but being too polite to tell them so.

On Earth? I would just let them believe it. In all my years I have learned one lesson that all others should truly learn:

You cannot teach the willfully ignorant. Stop wasting your resources trying.

There should be zero relationship between religion and government. Like a Chinese wall, there should be a very clear separation between church and state. There should be an open forum to allow everyone to voice their concerns. To restrict criticism of religion is to restrict open discussions and invite hateful, ignorant conversations.

I'll add my 5 cents, but nothing that hasn't already been said...

1) Asgardia is/should be secular;

2) Freedom of speech must be guaranteed to all citizen. (no buts)

I think that's a problem a lot of people cannot get into their skulls.

Freedoms are not free. They come with responsibilities and duties.

People act so drunk on their own freedoms that they forget about what they need to do to keep them. Like teenagers when their parents aren't at home.

By: Phicksur(Asgardian) on 24 March 2017, 2:09 p.m.

I think that's a problem a lot of people cannot get into their skulls.

Freedoms are not free. They come with _responsibilities and duties_.

People act so drunk on their own freedoms that they forget about what they need to do to keep them. Like teenagers when their parents aren't at home.

+1; // I completely agree with you here.

Someone, if not you, must be making the sacrifices to keep the order of society. It should be everyone's responsibility to ensure they continue to be "free." Or, forever forsake it and watch it fade way...

Freedom of speech should guarantee my right to criticise any religion I want. And I would fight for it.