Scientist think it's okay to kill a unborn child, that sounds a bit extreme to me
1. This is an oversimplified generalization, which does not make for a solid argument.
2. Even if accurate, pointing out hypocrisy does not invalidate the truth of the original statement. That does not make for a solid argument.
3. This type of statement contributes basically nothing constructive to the discussion and is only going to incite angry responses. That's both trolling and rather spamish. Don't do that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
"Should children be taught religion?" Absolutely not. Children should be taught to gain knowledge in the natural ways knowledge is obtained, namely by reason and observation. Children should especially not be taught the hateful, fear-mongering gibberish in the Bible, which is based on the epistemology of "for I am the LORD your God because I said so."
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Keep in mind that a large chunk of people claim they are whatever religion happens to have a church down the street and that is readily available to them, whether or not they actually practice. Had I grown up in a Jewish, Muslim, or Hindi community, darn tootin' it would have influenced me. We tend to fall in line with that which our parents do, and our neighbors, our friends, and our family friends, etc...
I don't think there is any real point in teaching religion to kids, esp in America because we end up getting it shoved down our throats no matter what!
"Should children be taught religion?" Absolutely not. Children should be taught to gain knowledge in the natural ways knowledge is obtained, namely by reason and observation. Children should especially not be taught the hateful, fear-mongering gibberish in the Bible, which is based on the epistemology of "for I am the LORD your God because I said so."
Doesn't exactly work that way with "fear mongering" for some indoctrination. Sure for some it's a part of the corrupt tradition, for other religious folks it's a communal experience that they share with the family. The kid is given the option to join the religion or not when they begin to reach a certain age where they can discriminate their own belief system. Considering asynchronistic development in children, this occurs faster in some than others. But that's a whole other issue of parenting, you've got to know when to "let go."
People tend to change religion or sects at least once in their life. I think the statistic was up to about 80% of Americans. Anyway, it's a fairly common thing to change your religious affiliation over time even for the most "devout."
The major downside to not "passing down" a tradition is inherently the death of it. Man is a communal being, religion is a communal as well as individual process. The lines are blurred between those two.
Children are also not as gullible as people try to point out. Again asynchronistic development will counter "brain washing" given the nature of our culture. The issue is of the family and how they deal with the "break from the faith." Even the Amish have to face this, and do so in their own way much to their credit.
Could they do better? Yes by a long shot, but that's the way of things. Always room for improvement.
There are also fundamental belief structures within a society that are equally as archaic as "fear mongering" religions that people "believe" and therefore pass onto their children and thus continue the cycle of corruption.
"Should children be taught religion?" Absolutely not. Children should be taught to gain knowledge in the natural ways knowledge is obtained, namely by reason and observation. Children should especially not be taught the hateful, fear-mongering gibberish in the Bible, which is based on the epistemology of "for I am the LORD your God because I said so."
Overgeneralization FTL.
Sure, a lot of the stuff is the Bible is pretty rough; some of it is absurd. But how is this...
"This is my commandment, that you love one another."
or this
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."
or this
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."
...representative of hateful, fear-mongering gibberish?
Quote from pandafarmer »
I don't think there is any real point in teaching religion to kids, esp in America because we end up getting it shoved down our throats no matter what!
The religion that mostly gets "shoved down our throats" in America is consumerism, which is far more worrisome than anything having to do with God IMHO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
The main problem with teaching religion is that any person or establishment doing the teaching will be biased, resulting in indoctrination of the child. It is especially more true with parents doing the teaching as young children always seek to emulate their parents without really understanding what it means.
There are a few, like my own parents, who despite being catholics, accepted that I did not want to follow their faith and let me do my own spiritual searching. But people like that are very few.
I"m all for teaching. Knowledge is power. The real question here IMO is : Can we trust anyone to teach religion to children?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
"This is my commandment, that you love one another."
or this
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."
or this
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."
...representative of hateful, fear-mongering gibberish?
The Bible says so many things that it is bound to have something positive to say just by sheer volume. I am profoundly unimpressed. Mortals have produced better moral treatises overall.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
The Bible says so many things that it is bound to have something positive to say just by sheer volume. I am profoundly unimpressed. Mortals have produced better moral treatises overall.
Well, personally, if not for historical considerations, I'd be content to throw away the OT, along with the epistles of Paul, and just work with what we get from Jesus and those who had intimate personal knowledge of him (like James and John). And I'm not sure whether we really have produced superior moral treatises to the sort of stuff we get from Christ... ideal morality seems to plateau at some point.
I recall reading something by an atheist who proposed a "Platinum Rule" to supercede Christianity's longstanding "Golden Rule." Rather than, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, he suggested, do unto others as they would have you do unto them. And I don't think it reaches any new ground. Obviously all such pithy commandments will have caveats. The Golden Rule doesn't work for hardcore masochists; the Platinum Rule is garbage as applied to criminals who want their crimes overlooked.
In any case, the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus Christ remain to this day so admirable and relevant that they have even prompted the formation of so unlikely an organization as "Atheists for Jesus". http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/
So I would say that there's a lot of merit in studying and teaching about Christ; less so in regards to many strains of Christianity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
In any case, the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus Christ remain to this day so admirable and relevant that they have even prompted the formation of so unlikely an organization as "Atheists for Jesus". http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/
Hey, that's pretty cool. Focusing on Christ's message as philosophy? Who would've thought that was a good idea?
That's how teaching is supposed to go: "Here's what this person thought. What do you think is good or bad about it?" Except in math and science...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
good idea indeed. I myself as an agnostic admire Jesus Christ for his good teachings.
Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth?
See, its more possible that a guy named Jesus, who hailed from Nazareth, walked around and spread a very good messege about loving our neighbors, and turning the other cheek, and helping our fellow man.
But, if you actually content that there was a Jesus Christ (christ is not his last name, but a title) The son of God, who performed miracles, who healed the blind and raised Lazarus from the dead...The Christ part comes after he is crucified, and ressurected to become Jesus Christ, the lord and savior and redeemer of humanity.
If you somehow accept that Jesus Christ was real, you are not an agnostic.
The son of God Jesus Christ redeemer of our souls, is only supported by the Bible (and its many new testament translations)
No other historians or sources from that time mention the guy. Believing in these stories as truth, makes you a theist, and you probably better start praying or something.
An Agnostic casts down ALL magical, metaphysical, fantastical, mystical, religious notions, especially pertaining to the knowledge of the existence of A God, or any Gods, and proclaims that the truth claims of all these such things can never be known, and are unknown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
A true Agnostic, will not say on one hand that Unicorns are complete nonsense, or that Magical Faeries are impossible,
but on the other hand say that Jesus and Allah and Ganesh might be possible.
A true Agnostic will say that the truth of UNicorns and God are both unknowable.
I think children should be taught to read, write, as well as math, logic, and reasoning ~BEFORE~ being taught anything that commands them to ignore math, logic, and reasoning to believe in it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
An Agnostic casts down ALL magical, metaphysical, fantastical, mystical, religious notions, especially pertaining to the knowledge of the existence of A God, or any Gods, and proclaims that the truth claims of all these such things can never be known, and are unknown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
A true Agnostic, will not say on one hand that Unicorns are complete nonsense, or that Magical Faeries are impossible,
but on the other hand say that Jesus and Allah and Ganesh might be possible.
A true Agnostic will say that the truth of UNicorns and God are both unknowable.
I think children should be taught to read, write, as well as math, logic, and reasoning ~BEFORE~ being taught anything that commands them to ignore math, logic, and reasoning to believe in it
Where to begin? Well, there's the no true Scotsman fallacy. You're limiting "true" agnosticism to strong agnosticism. Agnosticism in general only holds that the truth about God is unknown, not necessarily unknowable.
You also seem to be trying to straddle the gap between agnosticism and atheism. An agnostic necessarily believes that the existence of God is possible. The impossibility of God is solely the stance of atheism (and not even all atheism).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
See, its more possible that a guy named Jesus, who hailed from Nazareth, walked around and spread a very good messege about loving our neighbors, and turning the other cheek, and helping our fellow man.
But, if you actually content that there was a Jesus Christ (christ is not his last name, but a title) The son of God, who performed miracles, who healed the blind and raised Lazarus from the dead...The Christ part comes after he is crucified, and ressurected to become Jesus Christ, the lord and savior and redeemer of humanity.
If you somehow accept that Jesus Christ was real, you are not an agnostic.
The son of God Jesus Christ redeemer of our souls, is only supported by the Bible (and its many new testament translations)
No other historians or sources from that time mention the guy. Believing in these stories as truth, makes you a theist, and you probably better start praying or something.
An Agnostic casts down ALL magical, metaphysical, fantastical, mystical, religious notions, especially pertaining to the knowledge of the existence of A God, or any Gods, and proclaims that the truth claims of all these such things can never be known, and are unknown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
A true Agnostic, will not say on one hand that Unicorns are complete nonsense, or that Magical Faeries are impossible,
but on the other hand say that Jesus and Allah and Ganesh might be possible.
A true Agnostic will say that the truth of UNicorns and God are both unknowable.
I think children should be taught to read, write, as well as math, logic, and reasoning ~BEFORE~ being taught anything that commands them to ignore math, logic, and reasoning to believe in it
I just said that I admired Jesus Christ because of his teachings, but not necessarily completely believing in him as a god, or completely believing in his existence, same as how I view Confucius and his teachings.
I believe children should be taught about all religions as well as science at the the same time to allow them to choose for them selves...just seems to me the only fair way of going about it. Forcing your children to believe what you believe is basically building a robot to do what you want it to...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I will play what wins, not what is convenient. Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters. I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity. Style points do not appear on tournament reports. A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win. I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him. Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
Uh yeah, they should be taught a religion (Christianity). Then again, I don't believe in secular schools anyway and would never send my children to a school that doesn't incorporate religion.
I find it hypocritical to think that God gave us free will and Jesus died so we could make mistakes and learn from them, yet we are forced to learn religion and not have any freedom from each other. It almost sounds like tyranny. maybe it is.
I tend to think this isolates different religions from each other. I feel that different idealogies should keep contesting against each other so that they may spread their faith by word alone and to demonstrate which one is truly the better. Sadly, it also sounds like a lack of faith in your own religion; you don't believe others will believe in you.
I find it hypocritical to think that God gave us free will and Jesus died so we could make mistakes and learn from them, yet we are forced to learn religion and not have any freedom from each other. It almost sounds like tyranny. maybe it is.
We will always make mistakes and learn from them. It's hardly tyrannical for the older generation to try to teach the younger the truth. And you have to remember that in the mind of the practicing Christian, the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the truth. It's almost like you're saying, "Don't teach children about Newtonian mechanics; let them figure it out for themselves." Kids should not have to reinvent the wheel; we educate them precisely so that they don't.
Naturally, there are people who would object to raising Christian doctrine to the same level as scientific fact in children's education. This would be cause for a serious culture clash, but private religious education institutions exist to cater to the desires of the devout while the secular school systems are there for the rest of us. Freedom of choice: isn't it grand?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Religion should be taught within a cultural and historical perspective. It should not be used for indoctrination and it should not be taught as though it is either an alternative to science or somehow supercedes science. I feel that it should not be taught as though the claims it makes about existence and the universe holds any truth value whatsoever.
We do not allow parents to practice their own form of dentistry on their children. I fail to see why we should allow them to practice their own form of psychology on their children. And likewise, why we should allow them to teach their own form of science.
We will always make mistakes and learn from them. It's hardly tyrannical for the older generation to try to teach the younger the truth. And you have to remember that in the mind of the practicing Christian, the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the truth. It's almost like you're saying, "Don't teach children about Newtonian mechanics; let them figure it out for themselves." Kids should not have to reinvent the wheel; we educate them precisely so that they don't.
Naturally, there are people who would object to raising Christian doctrine to the same level as scientific fact in children's education. This would be cause for a serious culture clash, but private religious education institutions exist to cater to the desires of the devout while the secular school systems are there for the rest of us. Freedom of choice: isn't it grand?
Actually I wouldn't want to teach any kid of mine Newtonian mechanics either, since I have no justification for the framework (also, I hear they don't refer).
I like the idea of teaching observation and experimentation. Teaching epistemology itself - and even that limited by my own grasp of forms of knowing (e.g. empathetic knowing).
So yeah, I would say "Children should not be taught religion", which is to mean the following sense:
I believe that:
Parents ought to accept a prescription that:
Religion should not be 'taught' to their children
However it happens that I have some not-entirely articulated stance as regards parents' inherent freedom to do what they wish with their children*, so I would not wish that any sort of public enforcement, "hard or soft", actualize this prescription. I just think I'm right about the previously stated 'ought not' and hope others would see the same.
*coming form some sort of intuition like "Who is to say what sort of 'environment' will work out for a child, looking at ourselves as just any other animal trying to be fitted to its variable environment in life", which I find to be of a kind with the same reasonings that back up the principle of Free Speech.
Something like that.
And yes, I am trying to resolve it with "Well what about $#&@ up parents?" Trying very hard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
This whole thread speaks to a greater truth, the secular worlds desire to win the war of ideas and it's willingness to play dirty.
The argument seems to be children shouldn't be taught religion because they aren't mature or informed enough to rebuke it. This is based on the bias and misguided values of the person making the origional argument and implies that once properly informered people will think just like you and that religion is a bad thing. While these are commonly held beliefs among atheists the underlying notions have all the intellectual redeeming value and honesty of a fart.
Heres one for you; If the parents believe the tenants of their religion how can they justify NOT teaching their religion to their children.
Heres one for you; If the parents believe the tenants of their religion how can they justify NOT teaching their religion to their children.
Sam Harris is a great example of this. He was raised by a Jewish mother and a Quaker father. He declined to be bar mitzvahed as a child. Afterward, his mother never had any "God talk", as Harris puts it, that was in the home when he was younger. I suppose an argument could be made that he was still "educated" about the faith. I have no problems with this type of education, although I still do not like it when it is done at a very young age. But, I would argue that he is very fortunate to have been raised by a family such as his. I would believe that most religious families would consider it as pure blasphemy for their child not wanting to attend church, or not wanting to be baptized, or not wanting to be bar mitzvahed.
Religion should be taught within a cultural and historical perspective. It should not be used for indoctrination and it should not be taught as though it is either an alternative to science or somehow supercedes science. I feel that it should not be taught as though the claims it makes about existence and the universe holds any truth value whatsoever.
We do not allow parents to practice their own form of dentistry on their children. I fail to see why we should allow them to practice their own form of psychology on their children. And likewise, why we should allow them to teach their own form of science.
So you're comparing educating a child to.. dentistry? Dentistry isn't something you just do on a whim; it requires actual training and medical knowledge.
Last time I checked, the only requirement for educating a child is knowledge of the subject matter. And given it's my child, I'll make the final decision as to whether or not they're taught Christianity. It is my right and responsibility to raise my child, not the government's. You raise your children how you see fit and I'll do the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
I'll make the final decision as to whether or not they're taught Christianity. It is my right and responsibility to raise my child, not the government's. You raise your children how you see fit and I'll do the same.
I read an article where a couple raised their child to re-enact sex scenes with the child's toys. Keep in mind the child was under 10 years of age. Nothing about this strikes you as psychologically abusive? But, who are we to say how they should raise their child?
And I have no problem with someone educating their child about their family's religion and beliefs. However, I have a problem with using threats to coerce them into the religion. There are "real" threats, such as saying you will disown the child if he or she does not attend church with the family or you threaten the child with punishment just because he or she admits that he or she does not agree with the family's values and beliefs. These are real psychological structures that terrify and coerces the child into the religious beliefs and practices. There are also threats such as the punishment of hell and the like that coerces the child into the belief system. I remember being frequently told when I was younger that God has this big book where he keeps track of all the bad things that I did. And God would send me to a really bad place after I die if I did enough bad things. These things really weigh heavily on a child's mind and I do not see any of it as education.
(1)I read an article where a couple raised their child to re-enact sex scenes with the child's toys. Keep in mind the child was under 10 years of age. Nothing about this strikes you as psychologically abusive? But, who are we to say how they should raise their child?
(2)And I have no problem with someone educating their child about their family's religion and beliefs. However, I have a problem with using threats to coerce them into the religion. There are "real" threats, such as saying you will disown the child if he or she does not attend church with the family or you threaten the child with punishment just because he or she admits that he or she does not agree with the family's values and beliefs. These are real psychological structures that terrify and coerces the child into the religious beliefs and practices. There are also threats such as the punishment of hell and the like that coerces the child into the belief system. I remember being frequently told when I was younger that God has this big book where he keeps track of all the bad things that I did. And God would send me to a really bad place after I die if I did enough bad things. These things really weigh heavily on a child's mind and I do not see any of it as education.
(1) Of course that bothers me, and that would absolutely be just grounds for Social Services to get involved.
(2) In my experiences, it is these same children who also leave the faith as well because their parents are extremists (who also, in my opinion, will be very surprised themselves come their judgement day). More to the point, however, that doesn't exactly mean we've got the right to interfere, either. I haven't seen any data on it, but I would wager that the majority of these children turn out just fine in the end, albeit jaded towards religion. I would question the actual "harm" being done in the end.
Parents must have the leeway to raise their children as they see fit. Are we going to start telling families how to raise their kids because the kids get spanked for doing something? No, I don't believe we are.
There are times where Social Services should intervene -- like (1). (2), however, I would say no, despite the fact I don't agree with threatening a kid with Hell and what not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
Well, it would seem as though you adhere to this taboo that it is wrong to question religious belief just because it is religious belief. You even agree with me that it is wrong to threaten a child with the threat of hell in order for them to adhere to the faith and yet you say that there should be nothing done about it. What gives?
Of course that bothers me, and that would absolutely be just grounds for Social Services to get involved.
It is my right and responsibility to raise my child, not the government's.
If you say that Social Services need to be involved then the government does indeed have some degree of responsibility then?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Scientist think it's okay to kill a unborn child, that sounds a bit extreme to me
Insert witty phrase here
1. This is an oversimplified generalization, which does not make for a solid argument.
2. Even if accurate, pointing out hypocrisy does not invalidate the truth of the original statement. That does not make for a solid argument.
3. This type of statement contributes basically nothing constructive to the discussion and is only going to incite angry responses. That's both trolling and rather spamish. Don't do that.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
for I am the LORD your Godbecause I said so."Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I don't think there is any real point in teaching religion to kids, esp in America because we end up getting it shoved down our throats no matter what!
Doesn't exactly work that way with "fear mongering" for some indoctrination. Sure for some it's a part of the corrupt tradition, for other religious folks it's a communal experience that they share with the family. The kid is given the option to join the religion or not when they begin to reach a certain age where they can discriminate their own belief system. Considering asynchronistic development in children, this occurs faster in some than others. But that's a whole other issue of parenting, you've got to know when to "let go."
People tend to change religion or sects at least once in their life. I think the statistic was up to about 80% of Americans. Anyway, it's a fairly common thing to change your religious affiliation over time even for the most "devout."
The major downside to not "passing down" a tradition is inherently the death of it. Man is a communal being, religion is a communal as well as individual process. The lines are blurred between those two.
Children are also not as gullible as people try to point out. Again asynchronistic development will counter "brain washing" given the nature of our culture. The issue is of the family and how they deal with the "break from the faith." Even the Amish have to face this, and do so in their own way much to their credit.
Could they do better? Yes by a long shot, but that's the way of things. Always room for improvement.
There are also fundamental belief structures within a society that are equally as archaic as "fear mongering" religions that people "believe" and therefore pass onto their children and thus continue the cycle of corruption.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Overgeneralization FTL.
Sure, a lot of the stuff is the Bible is pretty rough; some of it is absurd. But how is this...
"This is my commandment, that you love one another."
or this
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."
or this
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."
...representative of hateful, fear-mongering gibberish?
The religion that mostly gets "shoved down our throats" in America is consumerism, which is far more worrisome than anything having to do with God IMHO.
There are a few, like my own parents, who despite being catholics, accepted that I did not want to follow their faith and let me do my own spiritual searching. But people like that are very few.
I"m all for teaching. Knowledge is power. The real question here IMO is : Can we trust anyone to teach religion to children?
Quite.
The Bible says so many things that it is bound to have something positive to say just by sheer volume. I am profoundly unimpressed. Mortals have produced better moral treatises overall.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Well, personally, if not for historical considerations, I'd be content to throw away the OT, along with the epistles of Paul, and just work with what we get from Jesus and those who had intimate personal knowledge of him (like James and John). And I'm not sure whether we really have produced superior moral treatises to the sort of stuff we get from Christ... ideal morality seems to plateau at some point.
I recall reading something by an atheist who proposed a "Platinum Rule" to supercede Christianity's longstanding "Golden Rule." Rather than, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, he suggested, do unto others as they would have you do unto them. And I don't think it reaches any new ground. Obviously all such pithy commandments will have caveats. The Golden Rule doesn't work for hardcore masochists; the Platinum Rule is garbage as applied to criminals who want their crimes overlooked.
In any case, the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus Christ remain to this day so admirable and relevant that they have even prompted the formation of so unlikely an organization as "Atheists for Jesus". http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/
So I would say that there's a lot of merit in studying and teaching about Christ; less so in regards to many strains of Christianity.
Hey, that's pretty cool. Focusing on Christ's message as philosophy? Who would've thought that was a good idea?
That's how teaching is supposed to go: "Here's what this person thought. What do you think is good or bad about it?" Except in math and science...
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
good idea indeed. I myself as an agnostic admire Jesus Christ for his good teachings.
Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth?
See, its more possible that a guy named Jesus, who hailed from Nazareth, walked around and spread a very good messege about loving our neighbors, and turning the other cheek, and helping our fellow man.
But, if you actually content that there was a Jesus Christ (christ is not his last name, but a title) The son of God, who performed miracles, who healed the blind and raised Lazarus from the dead...The Christ part comes after he is crucified, and ressurected to become Jesus Christ, the lord and savior and redeemer of humanity.
If you somehow accept that Jesus Christ was real, you are not an agnostic.
The son of God Jesus Christ redeemer of our souls, is only supported by the Bible (and its many new testament translations)
No other historians or sources from that time mention the guy. Believing in these stories as truth, makes you a theist, and you probably better start praying or something.
An Agnostic casts down ALL magical, metaphysical, fantastical, mystical, religious notions, especially pertaining to the knowledge of the existence of A God, or any Gods, and proclaims that the truth claims of all these such things can never be known, and are unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
A true Agnostic, will not say on one hand that Unicorns are complete nonsense, or that Magical Faeries are impossible,
but on the other hand say that Jesus and Allah and Ganesh might be possible.
A true Agnostic will say that the truth of UNicorns and God are both unknowable.
I think children should be taught to read, write, as well as math, logic, and reasoning ~BEFORE~ being taught anything that commands them to ignore math, logic, and reasoning to believe in it
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Where to begin? Well, there's the no true Scotsman fallacy. You're limiting "true" agnosticism to strong agnosticism. Agnosticism in general only holds that the truth about God is unknown, not necessarily unknowable.
You also seem to be trying to straddle the gap between agnosticism and atheism. An agnostic necessarily believes that the existence of God is possible. The impossibility of God is solely the stance of atheism (and not even all atheism).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I just said that I admired Jesus Christ because of his teachings, but not necessarily completely believing in him as a god, or completely believing in his existence, same as how I view Confucius and his teachings.
Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters.
I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity.
Style points do not appear on tournament reports.
A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win.
I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him.
Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
I find it hypocritical to think that God gave us free will and Jesus died so we could make mistakes and learn from them, yet we are forced to learn religion and not have any freedom from each other. It almost sounds like tyranny. maybe it is.
I tend to think this isolates different religions from each other. I feel that different idealogies should keep contesting against each other so that they may spread their faith by word alone and to demonstrate which one is truly the better. Sadly, it also sounds like a lack of faith in your own religion; you don't believe others will believe in you.
We will always make mistakes and learn from them. It's hardly tyrannical for the older generation to try to teach the younger the truth. And you have to remember that in the mind of the practicing Christian, the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the truth. It's almost like you're saying, "Don't teach children about Newtonian mechanics; let them figure it out for themselves." Kids should not have to reinvent the wheel; we educate them precisely so that they don't.
Naturally, there are people who would object to raising Christian doctrine to the same level as scientific fact in children's education. This would be cause for a serious culture clash, but private religious education institutions exist to cater to the desires of the devout while the secular school systems are there for the rest of us. Freedom of choice: isn't it grand?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We do not allow parents to practice their own form of dentistry on their children. I fail to see why we should allow them to practice their own form of psychology on their children. And likewise, why we should allow them to teach their own form of science.
Actually I wouldn't want to teach any kid of mine Newtonian mechanics either, since I have no justification for the framework (also, I hear they don't refer).
I like the idea of teaching observation and experimentation. Teaching epistemology itself - and even that limited by my own grasp of forms of knowing (e.g. empathetic knowing).
So yeah, I would say "Children should not be taught religion", which is to mean the following sense:
I believe that:
Parents ought to accept a prescription that:
Religion should not be 'taught' to their children
However it happens that I have some not-entirely articulated stance as regards parents' inherent freedom to do what they wish with their children*, so I would not wish that any sort of public enforcement, "hard or soft", actualize this prescription. I just think I'm right about the previously stated 'ought not' and hope others would see the same.
*coming form some sort of intuition like "Who is to say what sort of 'environment' will work out for a child, looking at ourselves as just any other animal trying to be fitted to its variable environment in life", which I find to be of a kind with the same reasonings that back up the principle of Free Speech.
Something like that.
And yes, I am trying to resolve it with "Well what about $#&@ up parents?" Trying very hard.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The argument seems to be children shouldn't be taught religion because they aren't mature or informed enough to rebuke it. This is based on the bias and misguided values of the person making the origional argument and implies that once properly informered people will think just like you and that religion is a bad thing. While these are commonly held beliefs among atheists the underlying notions have all the intellectual redeeming value and honesty of a fart.
Heres one for you; If the parents believe the tenants of their religion how can they justify NOT teaching their religion to their children.
So you're comparing educating a child to.. dentistry? Dentistry isn't something you just do on a whim; it requires actual training and medical knowledge.
Last time I checked, the only requirement for educating a child is knowledge of the subject matter. And given it's my child, I'll make the final decision as to whether or not they're taught Christianity. It is my right and responsibility to raise my child, not the government's. You raise your children how you see fit and I'll do the same.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
I read an article where a couple raised their child to re-enact sex scenes with the child's toys. Keep in mind the child was under 10 years of age. Nothing about this strikes you as psychologically abusive? But, who are we to say how they should raise their child?
And I have no problem with someone educating their child about their family's religion and beliefs. However, I have a problem with using threats to coerce them into the religion. There are "real" threats, such as saying you will disown the child if he or she does not attend church with the family or you threaten the child with punishment just because he or she admits that he or she does not agree with the family's values and beliefs. These are real psychological structures that terrify and coerces the child into the religious beliefs and practices. There are also threats such as the punishment of hell and the like that coerces the child into the belief system. I remember being frequently told when I was younger that God has this big book where he keeps track of all the bad things that I did. And God would send me to a really bad place after I die if I did enough bad things. These things really weigh heavily on a child's mind and I do not see any of it as education.
(1) Of course that bothers me, and that would absolutely be just grounds for Social Services to get involved.
(2) In my experiences, it is these same children who also leave the faith as well because their parents are extremists (who also, in my opinion, will be very surprised themselves come their judgement day). More to the point, however, that doesn't exactly mean we've got the right to interfere, either. I haven't seen any data on it, but I would wager that the majority of these children turn out just fine in the end, albeit jaded towards religion. I would question the actual "harm" being done in the end.
Parents must have the leeway to raise their children as they see fit. Are we going to start telling families how to raise their kids because the kids get spanked for doing something? No, I don't believe we are.
There are times where Social Services should intervene -- like (1). (2), however, I would say no, despite the fact I don't agree with threatening a kid with Hell and what not.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
If you say that Social Services need to be involved then the government does indeed have some degree of responsibility then?