Freedom

It depends on what religion you're talking about. You can't just say religion as a general term or as if it's ONE. There are many religions out there, some contradict themselves, some don't really contradict themselves so much as they just believe in things that have yet to be proven or are based on traditions. There are many religions because people have different ideas and beliefs about their existence. Also, there are many of them because people were raised in different areas of the world thus being conformed to whatever religion they grew up with. So, religiong doesn't necessarily disagree or agree with "itself."  Same goes with science. Some scientific theories disagree with others, while some also support others. It really just depends. In both science and religion, each's origin, or current policies (or whatever) were influenced by something. Both have influenced each other and both will continue to do so. The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. Of course, I'm just basing this on the little bit I've read between you too. I'm not sure how you guys got from freedom to this.

Yes, that's my point, religions in general disagree with each other as much as the different sciences.  Really what this whole discussion comes down to, is whether it is or is not okay to take one's freedom for granted (I say it is), if not, then is it really freedom (I say it isn't), and finally do we have a moral obligation to fight for freedom (I say we don't).

Well, I think what someone means when they say it's not okay to take freedom for granted is, that they're not saying it's not your right (or freedom) to take it for granted, but that it's morally (for whoever) kind of wrong. Which is your choice. And, I would say that you are in a way morally obligated to fight for freedom, mainly because if no one fought for freedom, they would more than likely lose their freedom to some dictator or anything a like. Of course, I'm not saying you should join the military or anything, because I wouldn't. The reason why having complete and utter freedom might be a lost cause (I think that's close to what you said before, I'm not sure though) is because so many do take freedom for granted or don't believe it's their duty to fight for freedom. I'm not saying I'm right, it's just what I think. I think? hah.

Right, and my point is, that if you would have to fight for or defend freedom, then you really don't have it in the first place, and if there would be any reprecussions for taking your freedom for granted, then it's not really freedom either. I also do not believe freedom to be a lost cause.  I only think that it will not be achieved by fighting or rebelling. It can only be achieved by the ellimination of personal ambition and greed from the psychology of our species. That could happen, but not likely without more fighting, tyranny, and attrocities. I'm simply patient enough to let these things happen, until society has finally learned its lesson through experience. Something which I doubt will happen in my life time.

If you're forced to fight for freedom, than you're right, you're not free. But I think suffering consequences from taking freedom for granted doesn't mean you're not free. It means that bad stuff happened to you for taking it for granted. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're under any type of opression or that you're being denied your rights. I mean, let's say you're taking freedom for granted, just going along in life not fighting to keep it or to help other's gain theirs, and then one day, some guy forms this huge cult and no one defends your freedom and thus the guy forces you to follow is cult or else die. This happened because you took your freedom for granted. This does not mean that you are not truely free, it simply means that someone saw this and decided to opress you. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I'm explaining this correctly. I mean, I see your point, but those reprecussions could be someone forcing you into a cage because they see you are taking your true freedom for granted. Which means, you were truely free to do as you wish, but because someone just happened to see you, your freedom was taken away. (this really is hard to explain.)

Let me try this, it is your right to take freedom for granted and if you are denied that right, than you are not truely free. But because bad things can happen to anyone for ANY reason, (and everything can lead to bad things), taking your freedom for granted can have consequences in the future. I'm not necessarily talking about punishment.

And, it might be best to keep personal ambition in our psychological being. If we lost a desire to achieve goals, it could lead to us losing our ambition to continue living.

no thats the reason why there is so many. Because if you cant agree with one, you make up your own. It doesnt disagree with ITSLEF. People disagree with it. Man, I know your smart enough to grasp that. Thus, people disagree with Religion and it does not disagree with itself.

ok so i totally agree with m_eanwhile on the whole freedom issue with a few exceptions here and there but for the most part she pretty much summed it up. But i have to disagree with you, platypus, about religion agreeing with itself, religion is constantly disagreeing with itself not only because there are so many religions that condridict each other but pick any religion and there are certain facts that its based on that condridict themselves.

thats not what the argument is. Read the first point I wrote, it started everything. I said that people who fought for our freedom deserve respect. lol

 And if your FORCED to fight for freedom. Well then you were free until you were obligated to fight for it, just because others MAY be fighting for it, and your NOT. I believe they deserve a slight bit of respect. And people who contemplate their free rights, personally I believe are wasting the enjoyment of their freedom, becuase they feel they aren't already thankful to have enough.

and as for religion. Religion isnt constantly disagreeing within each individual religion, but with OTHER religions.But to say a religion disagrees with itself. Is saying "Christianity disagrees with Christianity?" ... Religion disagrees with other religions, but not with ITSELF. lol. IF you refer to "itslef" as all religion( which I would say they are all VERY different culturally, spiritually, or whatever it may be), than I belive your statement is false.

And of course many things go against religion including OTHER religions. Religion is based on FAITH.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not because that's kinda what I said. Religion can't agree or disagree with itself, it's a reference term. Instead of naming every organized beliefs out there, we just call it all, religion.

I see what you mean, M, but what I'm saying is that freedom is a matter of opinion.  My point of view is also difficult to explain. I believe that freedom is acceptance of one's fate, and that if you are willing to kill, harm, or even lie to somebody to stifle a threat, then you do not have freedom, because you are not accepting the fate that is putting you to the test. Freedom is respecting the world around you without fear, no matter how dangerous. Freedom is willing self-sacrifice, and as would be ironic to the mind of modern man, freedom results in humble servitude. Including research that would advance technology. This is why I'm an Anarchist. I do not believe anarchy would last for long if we were plunged into it today. Anarchy is only the best structure of society, when a certain critical majority of its members have become what I would call free.

Your right religion is a referance term.

Religion is based on Faith, and often faith alone.

The conversation did start with ,Platypus, saying that people who fight/fought for freedom should be respected, and I agree with that.

And even though the conversation started with freedom, religion can easily be brought up because freedom and religion are almost always intertwined.

And NO anarchy will never work in any society because humans as a whole are to greedy, and selfish, and power hungary.

I think it should just settle that freedom is something left up to the individual to define as it fits for them. You're right, it is a matter of opinion and thus coming to an agreed conclusion with everyone is not going to happen.

I contend that the greedy and power-hungry segment of the human population will one day drop to a small minority, and that the number of people who value self-reliance will rise to a large majority.  At that point, no government would be able to rise up, because they would not be able to convince the majority that one is needed. People who speak of impossibilities concerning sociology end up perpetuating them.

You say "Freedom is willing self-sacrifice." Well then shouldnt the people that join the army and are WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES excersicing their freedom? And shouldn't we respect them because they are taking the freedom they have and using it to benefit others? Whether it be anarchy or whatever, you wouldn't have such a stable anarchist group in your country if those didnt fight for your freedom, anarchists in other countries are sometimes called terrorists. Because you already have freedom, and you fight for more, you deem yourself an anarchist. But sum1 who does not have freedom already who fights and opposes government, is deemed a terrorist? I know this may be a comparison blown WAY large.. but in the end.. it does make sense.

And this mind you, this is excluding the irrational terrorists.

To repeat myself, "if you are willing to kill, harm, or even lie to somebody to stifle a threat, then you do not have freedom, because you are not accepting the fate that is putting you to the test." National defense is not intended to be a sacrifice, but an attempt to avoid sacrifice as much as possible. I don't expect any of you to see it the way I do. I value self-reliance over security, and servitude over life. My ideal approach is  to encourage freedom by example than to ceize it by force.

lol @ all of this.

shouldnt you be able to be 'free to lie' to stifle threat? wouldnt that be freedom?

death brings freedom

if by freedom you mean absence of being able to make any choices?

By freedom I mean lack of motivation to lie or cause harm to other people.

but thats motivation not freedom, true freedom is the freedom to do anything at anytime. No one will ever have true freedom it doesnt exist. even in death.

True freedom is anarchy

he is right there

I've had several lucid dreams that allowed me the sort of freedom you're talking about. The way I see it, that makes such freedom possible.

Sleep brings dreams and freedom – yep, ill buy that one! – we should all dream more

i agree that dreams brung freedom, but it is only freedom of the mind.

Why would one need any other kind?

I guess if you're happy despite not being free, in a way, you are free?

Freedom is enthusiasm for the life experience. If no experience brings down your enthusiasm, then are you really oppressed?

k. im gonna finish this argument once and for all. there is no true defition of freedom. freedom is defined by opinion of how one feels they should be free. or in any case the opinion of the people in this forum. as for all your answers hideous monster. you cant stick to one idea.

 First you say " Freedom is a very neutral concept", but if anything its the complete opposite. The struggle for freedom over thousands of years will tell you that. If it was such a neutral idea therew ouldn't be conflict. The fact of the matter is, not everyone believes that freedom is a neutral concept. Because sometimes in order to be free, others aren't or must sacrifice some of their freedoms. 

You claim I "equate military service with freedom." But I believe they merely deserve respect becuase they are using thier freedom for a better cause and defending the freedom of others. Whether they be romans in 250 b.c.e. or americans in iraq (even if i dont believe in the governments ideas in their reasons to be there), or Canadian soldiers like my relatives who fought in Vietnam.

You then say, "the definition of freedom seems to be dependant on the individual.  So in the end, you can obtain freedom, just by deciding that you want to live the way you are forced to." If the concept of freedom is neutral, than how can the phrase "deciding that you want to live the way you are forced to..." make sense. IF you are "forced" to do something  you aren't deciding anything. If it is neutral, why is their force? Your arguments are contradictory.

Your argument has been so off track you took a small comment about global warming and started talking about redshift and how science and religion disagree with themselves. But then the conclusion was that Religion disagrees with other religions but not itself. It it disagreed in itself than it wouldn't be religion because religion is based on belief and faith and the teachings, scripture (if any) and practice. No room for disbelief if you want to be a true religious person.

Your argument is all over the place. 1 comment about respect has blown this wayy larger and become the stupidest argument I have ever witnessed. freedom is defined by opinion of how one feels they should be free. There could be any dictionary definition you want and we can argue about what our own opinions of freedom are. No one thing or anything is truly free. Life gives ALL things restrictions.  Stop living in a dream.

Nice try.  My point has been quite consistant. The fact is that if you argue with someone long enough, you're eventually going to be able to take two or more seperate points that they've made and try to paint them as contradictory. Freedom can be so easily obtained just by deciding how one wants to be free, then the only way one can force you into dependence is by controling your thoughts. Do you believe you have to fight to win the right to think as you like? Perhaps your conclusion was that religion disagrees with other religion but not itself, but mine was that science disagrees with both itself and other sciences, which makes it as contradictory as religion, or more. I was not the one who brought the subject to science or religion, though. Somebody else said that Heaven was the only place where freedom exists, and I replied to that, and it branched off into a different conversation than the one you and I were having, only to be obsorbed by our conversation later.

 I have deep respect for those who believed they were fighting for freedom in the past, but not because of their actions. Only because of their existance. I have unlimited respect for all living things, and especially the brilliant human race. I don't believe we have to fight to exercise freedom. That we only really have to serve ourselves and our less fortunate neighbors, and let those in power threaten or kill us for serving the weak, rather than them, because it's only a matter of time before they understand that they have no power without us or our cooperation. Freedom is not being controled. I say  willingly doing what you're forced to do is freedom, but what that really means is that you are not forced to do anything, as long as you do not fear the consequences of any action. If a man holding a gun at your head, tells you to make him something to eat, you don't have to do it. You can accept the bullet and death, and to me, doing so is more an act of freedom than poisoning the gunman. Because you know that without servants, he's going to have to make his own food, eventually, and his murdering will prove itself pointless, and he will lose his will to kill. A lesson worth dying to teach somebody, I think. You know, though I'm an Atheist, I'm also very spiritual. I have a fundamental trust in people, and expect that there is nobody out there who is truely selfish. They say that when you die, you get to review the events which transpired throughout your life, and finally understand the things that you didn't understand in life. I hope that when you die, this conversation will serve as some importance, and that you will be able to comprehend the freedom I'm talking about.  And since you may review every word of this conversation at that time, allow me to leave your future deceased self a message:

It's been a pleasure crossing paths with you my friend. Perhaps we'll meet again in another life.

Am I the only one who cant be bothered to even read the above ???? I am free to make that choice.

Brevity is not my cup of tea.

No, Saddam, you're not the only one.

allow me to leave ur deceased blah blah. NERD ALERT! lol, man what the hell is that lol. am i supposta be like OMG this guy is so smart and like WOW sooo Insightful. OMG I TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY HOW COULD I BE SO BLIND! NOT!  Atheis, anarchist, I could care or less if you were Buddhist.

k im not arguing anymore. your gay, this argument is gay. every decision and opinion in life on whatever topic is subject to self, and by selfI mean self opinion which is the result of your own life experience. War is gay, freedom doesn't truly exist. Religion is for the faithful. And arguing about pointless shit is for you. Im sorry I argued for so long, when I actually felt like you were trying to speak intelligently instead of argue. Reply how u wish. Your still going to argue. Peace be to the world, John Lennon's Imagine is the closest thought I can think of to freedom. And if you reply with some pseudo anarchist bullshit about how you wanna tell everyone how life works, or how the world works or should, o rmaybe spread your anarchist and atheist opinion to others... whatever, write a book, nobody cares anymore. Including me, who may of for way too long.

And i hope when you reply to this, it will "one day serve some importance" and you will stop wasting your time. 

Well, of course he's going to reply. You telling him he's wrong is reason enough, he's going to defend himself and his statement. (I'm not saying he's right or wrong) I mean, if someone believe they're right or believes that you're getting what they're saying wrong, they're going to try and clarify. No need for insults when he ended his response in a friendly way.

then how do you define this statement .. " I hope that when you die, this conversation will serve as some importance, and that you will be able to comprehend the freedom I'm talking about. "

thats the only reason i got defensive. its my right and freedom ;) 

I see, sorry then.

Since I've missed the above debate, discussion or whatever, I just want to say...

"FREEDOM is just another word for nuthin' left to lose"

I don't mean to be so terse, but I am not willing to go back and re-hash all of the previous comments, they deserve to stand on their own. Everybody deserves to think and feel how they wish. And anybody else has the choice, the freedom to disagree.

We each as individuals are out numbered by our neighbors so our successful self determination is dependent on how we are perceived by them. 

Is any govrnment your parant?

Does any person have the right to control your garden?

Thay might do it by might but does that give them the right?

The ultimate question becomes is the security we get worth the liberties it costs us? At what point of management does a wildlife refuge become a zoo?

Well thats the hardest question that every american deals with. Suppossedly we have this wonderful democracy with all this freedom but how much of that freedom are we willing to give up to be protected, and then once he threat is over will the goverment give us all of our freedoms back?

No. Not willingly. A government is designed to become increasingly oppressive. Especially a democratic republic. When candidates campaign, they campaign on what they plan to do while in office. Well the only thing they can do is pass laws. So we're electing people specifically to create more restrictions on our freedoms. Would most Americans vote for the candidate who says "When I am your senator, I will do everything in my power to not get anything done!"  Of course not (well, I would, but my candidate would lose). If I were allowed to rewrite the constitution (and not allowed to ban the government in general), I would place limits on how many laws could be in effect at any given time, and how many words could be used to explain those laws.

I like the word restriction because laws (or anything to do with the govt.) can become very lengthy and tedious

I have to say that I do agree with having some laws. Like ones that help protect the environment, including animals. It just doesn't seem like people care enough to stop the mistreatment of such things.

Well, then I guess we have no choice but to force them at gun-point to be more kind-hearted.

lol, whatever works best.

hay…. wish i c0uld still d0 that…. T_T

wish i had that

Where do you live angel_girl?