I would like to point out that reasonable religious belief looks like the chart on the left. I wish there had also been some religious symbols on the left instead of simply on the right. As it is, it strawmans a man.
Christians shouldn't do that too - for example, in my country abortion is not legal unless some special circumstances - it's christians fault, they should just shut up, cause it's not their business. No one is forced to do an abortion, it's free choice, so it should be legal.
Sorry for my english - I know I'm making some mistakes.
RAmen
Your english is forgiven yoour trolling nature is perhaps less amendable.
Also give me proof that its within someone reasonable choice to kill what will be a child. This is no different to many people than killing a human so not sure how you can pass that off as "free choice".
The idea behind not teaching children religion is that if you don't, they will see that it is ******** and religion will die.
I thought the idea behind not indoctrinating children into a particular religion is so that they can one day make their own spiritual choices without feeling pressured one way or another?
Why does the death of religion have to be the ideal?
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
No. I'm against them being taught only that.
...that is what we're discussing, right?
So you're going to send caseworkers to every house and make sure each child is experiencing more then one religion?
Living in socialist countries is all the rage now, I hear.
Trying to force families to change the way they raise there children is pretty bad, actually. Especially when you can't even prove that teaching a child religion does them harm.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
So you're going to send caseworkers to every house and make sure each child is experiencing more then one religion?
I'm mildly opposed to it. I'm not going to fight tooth and nail to eliminate everything that irks me.
Trying to force families to change the way they raise there children is pretty bad, actually. Especially when you can't even prove that teaching a child religion does them harm.
Granted. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with expanding your horizons.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
There are no reasonable religious beliefs. At best they can be mild.
If you have sufficient reason for believing something, it's reasonable. It sounds like you treat "there are no reasonable religious beliefs" as a foregone conclusion, something of which you indict religious folks of in the subsequent sentence:
You already know what conclusion you seek, the only options are changing your rationalisation for it or wholly ignoring the idea.
A hypothesis is an expected conclusion to be tested against observation. If observation does not support it, you drop it. If it does, you critically evaluate your testing and refine as appropriate.
There have been many religious doctrines I've held to over the years that I've ended up dropping precisely because they did not jive with observation, or if subscribing to them would create internal contradiction. It is a happy coincidence that they had little foundation to begin with. But I didn't simply "rationalize away" the problems or ignore the problems completely. I dealt with them, as reasonable religious people feel compelled on principle to do.
I'm sure your experience with religious people in your life has crafted, in your mind, the intrinsic attributes, behaviors, and modes of operation of "the religious person." Be careful not to let limited circumstantial experience craft your mental associations; rather, be internally critical of your experience and strive to temper your judgments of other people. Remember that most people, religious or not, are unreasonable and ignorant. And remember also that there have been many intellectual heroes throughout history, religious (Augustine, Leibniz, Newton, Descartes, etc.) and not (Socrates, Kant, Hume, Jefferson, etc.).
I thought the idea behind not indoctrinating children into a particular religion is so that they can one day make their own spiritual choices without feeling pressured one way or another?
Why does the death of religion have to be the ideal?
Anyone thinking clearly would see for themselves that (most?) religion is BS. Religion is not good in the same way that government propaganda is not good; except it's worse.
Anyone thinking clearly would see for themselves that (most?) religion is BS.
o rly??
Religion is not good in the same way that government propaganda is not good; except it's worse.
Bad in that people who don't think about what they're told can be led astray? In that respect, I would say both religion and government propaganda are neutral and that it's people who can't differentiate between the good messages and the bad who are the actual problem.
Personally, I feel that that ability to really think about what one is being told is a major benefit of not being indoctrinated by a religion early on.
Trying to force families to change the way they raise there children is pretty bad, actually. Especially when you can't even prove that teaching a child religion does them harm.
what if the way they are raising them is bad? like someone else said in this thread it expands beyond religion and now we've kind of got off topic, but if someone was raising their child to be racist/prejudice (which does happen all over the world), shouldn't there be intervention?
So you're going to send caseworkers to every house and make sure each child is experiencing more then one religion?
no. i dont know how that problem would be solved but if children are introduced to religion, they should be introduced to multiple ones and not just one (and should not be expected to follow a specific one)
-------------------------------------
topic restated: should children be taught religion? taking into consideration the negatives/positives of religion, which we've concluded some(?) can be found elsewhere, such as school activities building confidence, etc., and also taking into consideration the fact that (young) children will believe anything they hear and cannot reason logically when you tell them "this is religion X. its the truth. go to X place every X day and do X and you will get X when you die."
---------------------------------------
off topic : i want to do an experiment and see what happens when you tell someone who is 20+ years old, who has never been introduced to religion (which would be hard to find), that "X" religion is the truth and nothing but the truth. and being "X" holy book with you as "proof."
i would want to hear what that person would say in response. i think it would go like this:
person introducing religion (christianity) (PIR): hey have you ever heard of christianity?
20+ year old person never introduced to religion (NIR): no.
PIR: well it goes like this. a supreme being called God created everything, including you. no one created him because he was "always here." he created the first two humans, named Adam and Eve, who then branched off and had kids, who had kids, who had kids, etc. until you get present day. also, God created the devil, who is was an angel but is now evil and wanted gods power so got created hell to send him there and for all the bad people who dont believe jesus , who was gods physical representation on earth back in the day. and if you believe jesus is the son of god and accept you are a sinner and that he is your lord and savior and died on the cross for you then you will go to heaven and live happy forever with God.
Religion has had to be flexible in order to survive for thousands of years. Science equally has had to be in order to survive. Inflexible thought processes tend to die out quickly.
It's human folley, not science or religion. Both systems adapt quite easily. Science rejects and readjusts theories. Religion "reinterprets" itself, or people just convert to a new one.
Nice analogy, but it fails on this point: Science never claims itself to be the absolute truth, merely a way to understand the truth. Religion, on the other hand, does claim to be the absolute, irrefutable word of God, whatever that God may be.
For science, adapting to new information is natural. This is what science should do. On the other hand, the very fact that religion needs to "be flexible" or "reinterpret itself" cuts the legs under its own reason to exist. (If it needs to do so much adapting, then maybe, just maybe, it's not as absolute and irrefultable...)
off topic : i want to do an experiment and see what happens when you tell someone who is 20+ years old, who has never been introduced to religion (which would be hard to find), that "X" religion is the truth and nothing but the truth. and being "X" holy book with you as "proof."
i would want to hear what that person would say in response. i think it would go like this:
person introducing religion (christianity) (PIR): hey have you ever heard of christianity?
20+ year old person never introduced to religion (NIR): no.
PIR: well it goes like this. a supreme being called God created everything, including you. no one created him because he was "always here." he created the first two humans, named Adam and Eve, who then branched off and had kids, who had kids, who had kids, etc. until you get present day. also, God created the devil, who is was an angel but is now evil and wanted gods power so got created hell to send him there and for all the bad people who dont believe jesus , who was gods physical representation on earth back in the day. and if you believe jesus is the son of god and accept you are a sinner and that he is your lord and savior and died on the cross for you then you will go to heaven and live happy forever with God.
NIR: Who created God?
PIR: i said he was always there
NIR: how do you know that?
PIR:.....
NIR: bye.
You know this happens all the time, right? Where do you think the term "born-again Christian" comes from?
No. I'm against them being taught only that.
...that is what we're discussing, right?
Well put. Mobs of like-minded people can be found in churches, though.
I would say you can find Mobs of like minded people at wal-mart(case in point the guy getting crushed under the press of people). Also that is what you are discussing half the posts so far have just been F religion in the A it needs to burn in *insert place of choice*.
Nice analogy, but it fails on this point: Science never claims itself to be the absolute truth, merely a way to understand the truth. Religion, on the other hand, does claim to be the absolute, irrefutable word of God, whatever that God may be.
For science, adapting to new information is natural. This is what science should do. On the other hand, the very fact that religion needs to "be flexible" or "reinterpret itself" cuts the legs under its own reason to exist. (If it needs to do so much adapting, then maybe, just maybe, it's not as absolute and irrefultable...)
Tell that to scientists bringing out a new idea... tell that to Einstein and his DECADES of work to prove his theory and get it accepted.... Science has its own dogma since by nature its controlled by people.
As a person who has gone to both a public and a catholic school:
No, children should NOT be taught religion. Especially the way that religious schools force their beliefs on children.
That is not at all whats being discussed here....Read the thread, or at least come up with a better reason than my Catholic school was bad ergo all religious teaching=bad....
You know this happens all the time, right? Where do you think the term "born-again Christian" comes from?
Actually its even better than that. Try the guy who is actively hostile and converts that is an interesting and difficult discussion. If you think it does not happen to sound reasoning and logically thinking Atheists you are a fool.(this was a general you.)
Tell that to scientists bringing out a new idea... tell that to Einstein and his DECADES of work to prove his theory and get it accepted.... Science has its own dogma since by nature its controlled by people.
Any scientist bringing a new idea is naturally going to have difficulties, since experimental evidence is going to be scarce (if experimental evidence was abundant, someone would have thought of the idea long before him, and it wouldn't be new by definition).
When Einstein started developing his theories, the amount of evidence he had to present was nowhere near making his case a slam-dunk. I could write a whole article about this, but that's beside the point. The point is:
There is no parallel to be drawn between religion and science, since the former is all about faith without evidence and the latter is about search for evidence.
Preacher 500 years ago: "All heretics should be burned at the stake! That's the will of the lord! That's the God-given truth!"
Preacher today: "Uhm, we can't actually burn heretics at the stake anymore... I guess the will of the lord changed on this one. But ... being gay is still against the will of the lord! Lord doesn't want gays to marry! That's the God-given truth!"
Preacher 500 years from now: "<says something else entirely> And that's the will of the lord!"
Do you see how ridiculous this is? Why should we trust either of those three preachers? The very fact that religion needs to "adapt" and "be flexible" as time goes by proves us that religion failed in the one thing it was supposed to do: to bring us the Universal Truth.
And no, you DO NOT get to compare this with scientists, who thought once the atom can't be split, and now think it can. Unlike the preacher, the scientist never claimed "it is the God's will for an atom not to be split". At best, he could say "given the current evidence and my personal theory of the matter, the atom can't be split". Small difference.
EDIT: and the diagram in post #18 is a thing of beauty
Any scientist bringing a new idea is naturally going to have difficulties, since experimental evidence is going to be scarce (if experimental evidence was abundant, someone would have thought of the idea long before him, and it wouldn't be new by definition).
When Einstein started developing his theories, the amount of evidence he had to present was nowhere near making his case a slam-dunk. I could write a whole article about this, but that's beside the point. The point is:
There is no parallel to be drawn between religion and science, since the former is all about faith without evidence and the latter is about search for evidence.
Preacher 500 years ago: "All heretics should be burned at the stake! That's the will of the lord! That's the God-given truth!"
Preacher today: "Uhm, we can't actually burn heretics at the stake anymore... I guess the will of the lord changed on this one. But ... being gay is still against the will of the lord! Lord doesn't want gays to marry! That's the God-given truth!"
Preacher 500 years from now: "<says something else entirely> And that's the will of the lord!"
Do you see how ridiculous this is? Why should we trust either of those three preachers? The very fact that religion needs to "adapt" and "be flexible" as time goes by proves us that religion failed in the one thing it was supposed to do: to bring us the Universal Truth.
And no, you DO NOT get to compare this with scientists, who thought once the atom can't be split, and now think it can. Unlike the preacher, the scientist never claimed "it is the God's will for an atom not to be split". At best, he could say "given the current evidence and my personal theory of the matter, the atom can't be split". Small difference.
EDIT: and the diagram in post #18 is a thing of beauty
Do i see how ridiculous drawing conclusions based on perversions of Christianity is? If thats the question yes I do see that as being ridiculous. If you blindly believe preachers without researching what the bible/dead sea scrolls say yourself then you are a zealot, no doubt about that IMO.
Also there's no reason I cant draw links between the two... Are you telling me right now if i go to a scientist and ask, " Can we travel through time?" his answer will be anything other than NO! thats a stupid idea? Honestly you think to well of your fellow scientists and too little of your fellow common man.
Honestly you think to well of your fellow scientists and too little of your fellow common man.
That and religion claims that people are imperfect, and in turn cannot truly know the will of the gods nor enact all their will. Some get close, and in turn are worshipped as gods or prophets themselves.
The problem with the flow is:
Deities/Deity=Perfect
Person=Imperfect
Person=!Deity
Deity=Deity
Person=Person
Person/Deity get close but still Person=!Deity
A separation again between universe and person, even though the person has lost their connection to that oneness.
What's the point? The "scripture" is perfect, it is the person that is flawed to incorrectly carry out the will of said scripture.
The problem with science is equally dangerous, as whilst reason is good on its own *when devoid of bias/corruption from emotions.* However, it is not devoid of emotion as an animated institution. Therefore science=!pure reason in action, only in pure theory.
very good post captain and sums up a lot of arguments. I see people on here and other places quote science as the end all be all of any discussion. Whether it is proven or not.
When it comes down to it there are very few scientific facts. there are tons of scientific theories.
Look at einstien. He introduced a static principle into his formula because without it his formula showed a creation point in time. IE that time had a begining it just didn't simple exist.
His emotion over road his logic. To bad later on Hawkin and others showed that his orginal theory was correct that the universe was shifting and did have a begining. einstein never really accepted it.
I have however see so much perversion of religion in this thread that it is not funny. People are bringing their bias emotional views and throwing logic that they claim out the window. They are subjective at best and hardly close to objective.
The very fact that religion needs to "adapt" and "be flexible" as time goes by proves us that religion failed in the one thing it was supposed to do: to bring us the Universal Truth.
So wrong in many ways. It wasn't religion it was one person's interpritation of it that failed. there is a huge difference that you seem to ignore.
sorry jike but you experiment contains so many errors that it isn't funny. which tells me all the knowledge that you have of religion or christianity is severly flawed. Or you did not have the right person telling it to you.
and the diagram in post #18 is a thing of beauty
actually it failed in many ways. evidently some people have never had an indepth religious discussion without bringing their bias into it.
getting back to the OP though. he still hasn't answered exactly who he is to tell parents how to raise their kids. more so when he has absolutely no involvement in it.
The last time someone told me how to raise my kids i told him to keep his opinion to himself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The very fact that religion needs to "adapt" and "be flexible" as time goes by proves us that religion failed in the one thing it was supposed to do: to bring us the Universal Truth.
So wrong in many ways. It wasn't religion it was one person's interpritation of it that failed. there is a huge difference that you seem to ignore.
First, answer this: did religion in general, and/or these misinterpreting persons at least claim to bring us The Truth? (hint: yes)
Second, given the fact that throughout history almost every person interpreted religion differently, we can easily reach the conclusion that among X contradictory interpretations of The Truth at least X-1 must be wrong.
At best (assuming the Xth interpretation is right), religion's "miss rate" is (X-1)/X, which is pretty close to 100%, and if the Xth interpretation is wrong as well, that makes it 100%. To use your own words, so wrong is many ways.
Third, given the high miss rare of believers of previous ages, how do you know you're not one of them? How do you know your interpretation of religion isn't wrong? What experimental evidence can you bring to back your faith? Or is your chance to be right about the same as your predecessors? (among whom, to remind you, almost no one was right, with all this flexibility and adaptation thing).
what if the way they are raising them is bad? like someone else said in this thread it expands beyond religion and now we've kind of got off topic, but if someone was raising their child to be racist/prejudice (which does happen all over the world), shouldn't there be intervention?
Who cares? You have absolutely no right in telling someone else how to raise there child. As long as they aren't breaking any laws, they can raise there children how they see fit.
The only person who has authority over that is the parents.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
Quote from Jiaozy »
Once again, rating proves NOTHING.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to point out that reasonable religious belief looks like the chart on the left. I wish there had also been some religious symbols on the left instead of simply on the right. As it is, it strawmans a man.
Your english is forgiven yoour trolling nature is perhaps less amendable.
Also give me proof that its within someone reasonable choice to kill what will be a child. This is no different to many people than killing a human so not sure how you can pass that off as "free choice".
See:Nazi Germany, Stalin, and im sure there are others i am unaware of..
People tend to foster extremism, especially mobs of them.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
I thought the idea behind not indoctrinating children into a particular religion is so that they can one day make their own spiritual choices without feeling pressured one way or another?
Why does the death of religion have to be the ideal?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Are you guys really against children getting taught there parents faiths? Seriously?
I swear, some people argue sides just for the sake of arguing
No. I'm against them being taught only that.
...that is what we're discussing, right?
Well put. Mobs of like-minded people can be found in churches, though.
So you're going to send caseworkers to every house and make sure each child is experiencing more then one religion?
Living in socialist countries is all the rage now, I hear.
Trying to force families to change the way they raise there children is pretty bad, actually. Especially when you can't even prove that teaching a child religion does them harm.
I'm mildly opposed to it. I'm not going to fight tooth and nail to eliminate everything that irks me.
Granted. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with expanding your horizons.
Marijuana does that quite well :p.
Christianity makes a lot more sense when you're high.
Yah, when you're high on LIFE.
If you have sufficient reason for believing something, it's reasonable. It sounds like you treat "there are no reasonable religious beliefs" as a foregone conclusion, something of which you indict religious folks of in the subsequent sentence:
A hypothesis is an expected conclusion to be tested against observation. If observation does not support it, you drop it. If it does, you critically evaluate your testing and refine as appropriate.
There have been many religious doctrines I've held to over the years that I've ended up dropping precisely because they did not jive with observation, or if subscribing to them would create internal contradiction. It is a happy coincidence that they had little foundation to begin with. But I didn't simply "rationalize away" the problems or ignore the problems completely. I dealt with them, as reasonable religious people feel compelled on principle to do.
I'm sure your experience with religious people in your life has crafted, in your mind, the intrinsic attributes, behaviors, and modes of operation of "the religious person." Be careful not to let limited circumstantial experience craft your mental associations; rather, be internally critical of your experience and strive to temper your judgments of other people. Remember that most people, religious or not, are unreasonable and ignorant. And remember also that there have been many intellectual heroes throughout history, religious (Augustine, Leibniz, Newton, Descartes, etc.) and not (Socrates, Kant, Hume, Jefferson, etc.).
Anyone thinking clearly would see for themselves that (most?) religion is BS. Religion is not good in the same way that government propaganda is not good; except it's worse.
o rly??
Bad in that people who don't think about what they're told can be led astray? In that respect, I would say both religion and government propaganda are neutral and that it's people who can't differentiate between the good messages and the bad who are the actual problem.
Personally, I feel that that ability to really think about what one is being told is a major benefit of not being indoctrinated by a religion early on.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
what if the way they are raising them is bad? like someone else said in this thread it expands beyond religion and now we've kind of got off topic, but if someone was raising their child to be racist/prejudice (which does happen all over the world), shouldn't there be intervention?
no. i dont know how that problem would be solved but if children are introduced to religion, they should be introduced to multiple ones and not just one (and should not be expected to follow a specific one)
-------------------------------------
topic restated: should children be taught religion? taking into consideration the negatives/positives of religion, which we've concluded some(?) can be found elsewhere, such as school activities building confidence, etc., and also taking into consideration the fact that (young) children will believe anything they hear and cannot reason logically when you tell them "this is religion X. its the truth. go to X place every X day and do X and you will get X when you die."
---------------------------------------
off topic : i want to do an experiment and see what happens when you tell someone who is 20+ years old, who has never been introduced to religion (which would be hard to find), that "X" religion is the truth and nothing but the truth. and being "X" holy book with you as "proof."
i would want to hear what that person would say in response. i think it would go like this:
person introducing religion (christianity) (PIR): hey have you ever heard of christianity?
20+ year old person never introduced to religion (NIR): no.
PIR: well it goes like this. a supreme being called God created everything, including you. no one created him because he was "always here." he created the first two humans, named Adam and Eve, who then branched off and had kids, who had kids, who had kids, etc. until you get present day. also, God created the devil, who is was an angel but is now evil and wanted gods power so got created hell to send him there and for all the bad people who dont believe jesus , who was gods physical representation on earth back in the day. and if you believe jesus is the son of god and accept you are a sinner and that he is your lord and savior and died on the cross for you then you will go to heaven and live happy forever with God.
NIR: Who created God?
PIR: i said he was always there
NIR: how do you know that?
PIR:.....
NIR: bye.
For science, adapting to new information is natural. This is what science should do. On the other hand, the very fact that religion needs to "be flexible" or "reinterpret itself" cuts the legs under its own reason to exist. (If it needs to do so much adapting, then maybe, just maybe, it's not as absolute and irrefultable...)
No, children should NOT be taught religion. Especially the way that religious schools force their beliefs on children.
You know this happens all the time, right? Where do you think the term "born-again Christian" comes from?
I would say you can find Mobs of like minded people at wal-mart(case in point the guy getting crushed under the press of people). Also that is what you are discussing half the posts so far have just been F religion in the A it needs to burn in *insert place of choice*.
Tell that to scientists bringing out a new idea... tell that to Einstein and his DECADES of work to prove his theory and get it accepted.... Science has its own dogma since by nature its controlled by people.
That is not at all whats being discussed here....Read the thread, or at least come up with a better reason than my Catholic school was bad ergo all religious teaching=bad....
Actually its even better than that. Try the guy who is actively hostile and converts that is an interesting and difficult discussion. If you think it does not happen to sound reasoning and logically thinking Atheists you are a fool.(this was a general you.)
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
When Einstein started developing his theories, the amount of evidence he had to present was nowhere near making his case a slam-dunk. I could write a whole article about this, but that's beside the point. The point is:
There is no parallel to be drawn between religion and science, since the former is all about faith without evidence and the latter is about search for evidence.
Preacher 500 years ago: "All heretics should be burned at the stake! That's the will of the lord! That's the God-given truth!"
Preacher today: "Uhm, we can't actually burn heretics at the stake anymore... I guess the will of the lord changed on this one. But ... being gay is still against the will of the lord! Lord doesn't want gays to marry! That's the God-given truth!"
Preacher 500 years from now: "<says something else entirely> And that's the will of the lord!"
Do you see how ridiculous this is? Why should we trust either of those three preachers? The very fact that religion needs to "adapt" and "be flexible" as time goes by proves us that religion failed in the one thing it was supposed to do: to bring us the Universal Truth.
And no, you DO NOT get to compare this with scientists, who thought once the atom can't be split, and now think it can. Unlike the preacher, the scientist never claimed "it is the God's will for an atom not to be split". At best, he could say "given the current evidence and my personal theory of the matter, the atom can't be split". Small difference.
EDIT: and the diagram in post #18 is a thing of beauty
Do i see how ridiculous drawing conclusions based on perversions of Christianity is? If thats the question yes I do see that as being ridiculous. If you blindly believe preachers without researching what the bible/dead sea scrolls say yourself then you are a zealot, no doubt about that IMO.
Also there's no reason I cant draw links between the two... Are you telling me right now if i go to a scientist and ask, " Can we travel through time?" his answer will be anything other than NO! thats a stupid idea? Honestly you think to well of your fellow scientists and too little of your fellow common man.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
That and religion claims that people are imperfect, and in turn cannot truly know the will of the gods nor enact all their will. Some get close, and in turn are worshipped as gods or prophets themselves.
The problem with the flow is:
Deities/Deity=Perfect
Person=Imperfect
Person=!Deity
Deity=Deity
Person=Person
Person/Deity get close but still Person=!Deity
There's a creator/creature separation.
As for mysticism:
Person=!Oneness w/ Universe
Person+Enlightenment=Closeness /w Universe
Person+Enlightenment+Death=Oneness /w Universe
A separation again between universe and person, even though the person has lost their connection to that oneness.
What's the point? The "scripture" is perfect, it is the person that is flawed to incorrectly carry out the will of said scripture.
The problem with science is equally dangerous, as whilst reason is good on its own *when devoid of bias/corruption from emotions.* However, it is not devoid of emotion as an animated institution. Therefore science=!pure reason in action, only in pure theory.
Science=Reason
Person=Reason/Bias/Emotion
Science+Person=!Pure Reason
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.
Person A (Anti-religious): "All religions ever do is make people hold on to their extremist views even in the face of contradictory evidence."
Person B (Acceptant/tolerant): "What about those religious people who are moderate in and tolerant in their outlooks?
Person A: Shut up, you don't know anything. All religions are the same and so are all religious people.
Person B: *sigh*
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
When it comes down to it there are very few scientific facts. there are tons of scientific theories.
Look at einstien. He introduced a static principle into his formula because without it his formula showed a creation point in time. IE that time had a begining it just didn't simple exist.
His emotion over road his logic. To bad later on Hawkin and others showed that his orginal theory was correct that the universe was shifting and did have a begining. einstein never really accepted it.
I have however see so much perversion of religion in this thread that it is not funny. People are bringing their bias emotional views and throwing logic that they claim out the window. They are subjective at best and hardly close to objective.
So wrong in many ways. It wasn't religion it was one person's interpritation of it that failed. there is a huge difference that you seem to ignore.
sorry jike but you experiment contains so many errors that it isn't funny. which tells me all the knowledge that you have of religion or christianity is severly flawed. Or you did not have the right person telling it to you.
actually it failed in many ways. evidently some people have never had an indepth religious discussion without bringing their bias into it.
getting back to the OP though. he still hasn't answered exactly who he is to tell parents how to raise their kids. more so when he has absolutely no involvement in it.
The last time someone told me how to raise my kids i told him to keep his opinion to himself.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
First, answer this: did religion in general, and/or these misinterpreting persons at least claim to bring us The Truth? (hint: yes)
Second, given the fact that throughout history almost every person interpreted religion differently, we can easily reach the conclusion that among X contradictory interpretations of The Truth at least X-1 must be wrong.
At best (assuming the Xth interpretation is right), religion's "miss rate" is (X-1)/X, which is pretty close to 100%, and if the Xth interpretation is wrong as well, that makes it 100%. To use your own words, so wrong is many ways.
Third, given the high miss rare of believers of previous ages, how do you know you're not one of them? How do you know your interpretation of religion isn't wrong? What experimental evidence can you bring to back your faith? Or is your chance to be right about the same as your predecessors? (among whom, to remind you, almost no one was right, with all this flexibility and adaptation thing).
Who cares? You have absolutely no right in telling someone else how to raise there child. As long as they aren't breaking any laws, they can raise there children how they see fit.
The only person who has authority over that is the parents.