Honestly, I would say that one shouldn't raise a child to be one particular religion because a child cannot really see the big picture yet. I was raised Christian and went through all the "commiting" stages: baptism, first comminion, etc. and I, along with everyone else in my class was not even fully acknowledging what we were really promising and there really was little thinking in the entire matter. It was required since I was in a private school and everyone went through the motions because essentially as far as we were concerned it was just something one has to do like a fire drill, not an exciting step in becoming closer to God. Before a child can even really think about what tey are doing they have already "commited" themselves to God and in the right environment doesn't even consider anything else to be a viable option. I think a lot of these kids are put through these things by parents who are not particularly overly religious as well because of the pressure that exists to do so with religious parents or by putting a child through a religious school due to the "better morals".
Why throw them into things that children to not even understand when you could easily wait until they are of age to make better decisions for themselves? I don't see it as necessary to hold back any information about any religion or belittle it when the child has questions, but forcing it upon a child as their only option seems unfortunate. You can have good morals without being religious. No one needs the fear of going to Hell in order to be a good kid or person.
Sexist Discrimination
A focus on control over actually improving life and society
Religious edicts elevated to moral imperatives
There is a downward trend for literal belief, that part is true.
The complaint atheists have with the 10 commandments is that most of them have little to do with morality, and that the only good ones are already present in every other lasting system of morality. (peoples who murder each other constantly aren't going to survive long, right?)
What is your last statement supposed to say, anyway?
Anyway,
Children should not be indoctrinated into any system that makes assertions without a reasonable amount of factual backing.
Because we have reasonable alternative delivery methods for basic morality, the threshold for tolerating a system that produces bad stuff should be low.
Given that multiple competing systems make similiar claims, coupled with outside observers able to differentiate these claims, the best course of action is to hold off until the affected person can make a better judgement call. Two 9 year olds, one raised christian and the other hindu, can only offer that their respective parents raised them that way and they feel something in services.
Also, people have attributed the same kinds of feelings they get in your average church to going to a concert or even through the use of exotic substances (many religions actually use these to get closer to their deity)
Basically, since we can't nail down where the feelings come from, since we can't sit down with each holy text in front of us and choose the best one empyrically, and since we know that people tend to follow the system that they were told at kids long past reasonable evidence has presented itself, the following is what I would consider the best course of action.
Teach your kid to have an open mind.
Teach your kid to think about whether something makes sense or not
Teach your kid to think about how to prove whether something is right or wrong
Teach your kid to be a nice person, helpful to himself, others and his community
Teach your kid to respect other people, but not at the expense of his wellbeing.
Don't teach your kid to believe things without thinking them through
Don't teach your kid anything that can cause them to hate
Don't teach your kid anything that is going to hurt them
Don't teach your kid anything you can't prove or follow
Don't teach your kid to follow blindly
Also,
Do teach your kid magic, because its awsome and stuff.
Those are just sympthoms I used to illustrate the problem. Now, are you intelligent enough to piece out the information and figure out what the problem is? Let me know please.
The problem is you fail to see the great potential benefits of religion, and, even if you do, it is always outweighed by the personal bias you have against it.
Because lets face it, if your main reason for not wanting religion to be taught to children is that you think it fails at what you think it's trying to do for you, is pretty biased.
Once again, the order of the commandments is a sympthom of the problem.It should show a critically-minded reader that whoever wrote the scriptures didn't have his eye on the ball when it came to the general goodness of mankind. He probably had his eye on something else entirely. Let's say it together again, boys and girls:
To perpetuate the survival and prosperity of the religious establishment.
Many such sympthoms exist throughout any sacred book. The order of the commandments is but the most famous and visible of all.
It's funny how you talk about certain aspects of the bible as symptoms, as if religion is some deadly disease on society.
So now you've added another reason why you hate religion to the list:
Because you think all religions backgrounds are suspect.
So, how exactly does a certain religions background do anything to make its values and morals any less wholesome?
I can't travel back in time and reproduce it, but my best estimate would say more than 54%. And less than 54% in 50 years. And 0% at some point in time. Which is a good thing.
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.
House Bill 3678, the Texas Religious Expression Protection Law,
Is Designed to Force Sectarian Religion into Public Schools
Using the Power of the State, and Is Therefore Unconstitutional
by Steven Schafersman
July 9, 2007
The following is a letter sent to all members of the Senate Education Committee before their debate and vote, explaining why HB 3678 is illegal (unconstitutional), disingenuous, anti-scientific, and mean-spirited. Despite the entreaty, the Howard-Chisum stealth bill was passed and ultimately signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 15, 2007. Once the effects of this poorly-thought out statute are in force in Texas, an enormous amount of First Amendment litigation will occur. The bill--now a law--is an example of the powerful Texas radical religious right's aggressive program to promote and force their sectarian religious beliefs into the public school environment using the power of the state. They do this to counter the Constitutional secular and neutral nature of the public school system, and to reinforce the almost pervasive religious proselytization of children in Texas society. The religion promoted and forced into the public schools by this new statute will be, of course, Protestant Christianity. The new law will obligate captive audiences of tens of thousands of school children to listen to Protestant Christian prayers and mini-sermons under the guidance and direction of state authorities (school administrators).
As for the new law's anti-science content, students will be allowed to substitute their own sectarian religious explanations for scientific, historical, and cultural events and phenomena without fear of contradiction or correction. The law permits students, for example, to give responses in classes--no exception is made for science classes--that allow religious creationist explanations for natural phenomena in classwork, homework, and exams without penalty. Howard and Chisum have finally succeeded in getting creationism into our public school science classrooms. This is not education, but miseducation--the opposite of education.
Texas Citizens for Science considers this new law profoundly un-Constitutional and un-American, since it uses the power of the state to allow a particular majority's religious viewpoint to be forced on children of minority faiths or non-faith in Texas public schools. State proselytization of sectarian religion is always against the Constitution, the supreme law of the United States. The Texas Constitution also prohibits giving preference to any religion. Therefore, Texas Legislators who voted for this illegal and unnecessary bill are guilty of violating their oaths to defend the Constitution of both Texas and the United States.
The above is a pessimistic interpretation of the new law, but it takes years for stupid, illegal legislation like HB 3678 to be analyzed and implemented by school officials and then litigated by civil liberty and church-state separation organizations. Just more expense for Texas due to the ignorance and stupidity of our state legislators--in other words, business as usual. http://www.texscience.org/religion/hb3678-commentary.htm
This law is very vague and seems to be founded on the idea of protecting freedom of religion rather than forcing Christianity on someone.
Quote from the law »
House Bill 3678 amends the Education Code to require that a school district, beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, adopt and implement a local policy that provides for a limited public forum and voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints at school events and graduation ceremonies, in class assignments, and in noncurricular school groups and activities. The bill requires the district to treat such expression on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner as the expression of a secular or other viewpoint and prohibits the district from discriminating against a student based on his or her expressed religious viewpoint. The policy must require the district to ensure that a student speaker does not engage in obscene or indecent speech and to provide a disclaimer that a student's speech is not endorsed or sponsored by the district. The bill provides a model policy that, if adopted, would place the district in compliance with these requirements.
That isnt nearly as devious as our dear scientists want to make it sound. I do think it is worded incorrectly but nowhere in there does it say "this bill is for shoving protestant Christianity down everyones throat."
I disagree. A vegan is not going to tell a kid to take it on faith, they are going to explain the health benefits from it. The kids are also not going to be threatened with eternal torture for eating a cheeseburger.
On the perceived health benefits. Find me undeniable proof(in other words a scientist that isnt biased) that Vegan is healthier than say vegetarian or a balanced diet. Until you can do that its still a form of faith.
Also, most atheist parents I know intend to teach there kids about multiple religions.
That seems a little suprising? I mean teach it as in "this is what dumbass christians believe"? or this is a religion and what many people around the world believe, and i would prefer not to push you either towards it or towards my own lack of religion..... Somehow the first seems more probable than the second. Need proof look no further than earlier posters whose personal crusade is to destroy religion.
In 1998, 7 percent of scientists believed in god. In 1933 it was 15%, in 1914 it was 27.7%. 50% rate of return. One can guess that a serious christian would be more likely to respond to this than a... "serious atheist?", so the numbers could be much more in the non-theist favor, but that is neither here nor there.
Anyway, 7% were religious (downward trend) 10 years ago. I don't have the stats for recently, but the only nominally important scientist I am aware of that is religious heads up the human genome project (cool guy)
Finally someone found a credible statistic for this. We can finally put that issue to rest as a debate point.
First, the lowest statistic I could find was that 25% of are flushed out of the body. Other things I have read have indicated it could be as high as 75%. Anyway, lets look at it this way.
Premise: Gods real. (and by god, I mean Yahweh)
Premise: Soul enters body at conception
Fact: 1 in 4 blastocysts (conception) are flushed out of the body naturally. Self Aborted is a term used.
Conclusion: God has aborted more babies than anyone on earth possibly could.
Second, Nazi Germany was officially catholic. German soldiers had "God is with us" inscribed on their belts. Russia rebelled partially because of a domineering serf (slave) owning church and the Tzar was kinda of an ass too. Lets remember than atheism isn't a belief system. Many atheists go with humanism as a moral system. Stalin didn't do anything because his atheism told him too, he did it because he was a power hungry guy who fostered a cult of personality.
To the first part if it is God killing the blastocysts and not simply a different cause(ie mother smoking, falling etc.) then its still an all knowing God(according to my religion) doing this so I will trust in that. Also gl taking a fetis at such an early age it is almost undetectable. I mean its not like scientists are "aborting" 4 cell blastocysts.... more like 3-6 month babies...
As for the second part, I like how you selectively edited my post after quoting it...Nice cutting off the part that doesnt agree with your view/the straw man you where trying to make. My post needs to be taken in context, you took it completely out of context. The point is mobs of people religious or NOT tend to foster extremism. Never did i try to say that Stalin killed people because his Atheist beliefs told him to.
Actually, if you ask a scientist if we can travel through time the best answer he could give would be along the lines of "If we go past the speed of light, we could theoretically go backwards in time, but since we don't know how to get to those speeds we can't do it at this time" If you asked a 17th century scientist about space travel, you'd get an answer more inline with your silliness there, but the fact is that scientists don't claim access to omni knowledge from some old collection of scrolls bound to a book. Thats the cool thing about it. We get to take little pieces from everything and gradually get better, slowly work towards a more perfect future. Religion just says the same thing over and over till its finally forced to stop by the rest of society and steady drumbeat of time. I mean, how long ago did many a church defend slavery using the bible, and how many do now? How many still defend beating children compared to 100 years ago? Did the bible change, or did we humans grow up a little and get better?
Really, you ask something broadly considered impossible by science and the answer ill receive will be a "not now, but later" approach?
Also beating your children? Spanking maybe but i somehow dont think "beating" your children was acceptable even a hundred years ago.
Why are you harping so bad on our best and brightest? The vast majority of the good stuff that makes living better in this era than any other is the scientific advancements.
I actually wasnt intending to directly attack scientists in particular, my apoligies for that as someone who loves science and discovery it was never my intention to paint them in a bad/evil light as they are all well intentioned(mostly).
Taking this a step further, given the premise of the telephone game, you know information tends to degrade the more iterations is goes through, it stands to reason that the older interpratations of religion have a much higher chance of being right than the newer ones.
Shouldn't we try to maintain as close as possible to early style christianity, the odds of corruption being in the backround is ever ready. Even for protestant christianity, why your current view instead of the prime lutheran bits that first split from the RCC?
Now, to answere for you. You don't do this because previous iterations of christianity were more barbaric than it is now. The texts havent changed, but society doesn't like when you burn heretics or keep slaves or stone people for cheating. At the tail end of the procession that is positive social change you will find the church, changing its tune at the absolute last minute and then pretending it never taught the bad way
Phone argument only works with verbal communication. If you send and email to someone and it gets forwarded ten times the content of the email will not have changed but the interpretation/understanding of it may have.
This law is very vague and seems to be founded on the idea of protecting freedom of religion rather than forcing Christianity on someone.
Religious freedom is already protected. Bills like this one are, and have been, attempts to skew balance in favor of promoting a particular viewpoint. Being that this is texas, and I know a good many texans (among people I debate onboard, texans tend to be the least equipped to defend themselves and the most ardent supports of christianty)
That isnt nearly as devious as our dear scientists want to make it sound. I do think it is worded incorrectly but nowhere in there does it say "this bill is for shoving protestant Christianity down everyones throat."
The bill lets any given christian use of class time, sports event time, whatever to pray or whatnot. Previouslly, we kept church stuff in churches and learning in schools. I would like to keep it that way.
Also, infringments on freedoms don't come in fell swoops. They come by nickle and diming existing seperation.
On the perceived health benefits. Find me undeniable proof(in other words a scientist that isnt biased) that Vegan is healthier than say vegetarian or a balanced diet. Until you can do that its still a form of faith.
Vegans have alot more going for them than my 7th day adventist friend who will not eat pork, my catholic friends who won't eat meat on fridays, or my muslim buddy (I get around.... go navy) who doesn't eat pork, or my etc etc.
While I can't say that vegan is healthier than vegetarian or other diets, its able to be researched. The parents can explain to their kids exactly how eating a certain way gives benefits, even better benefits than other ways of eating. Religion can't do that. I would love to see someone try to prove conclusively, from a nuetral position, that christianity is better than buddhism. Any given two religions really. Hard to discuss because none of them really back up any of the fantastic claims. Vegans do that at least.
Also, I'm not trying to prove anything about vegans. It was an example.
That seems a little suprising? I mean teach it as in "this is what dumbass christians believe"? or this is a religion and what many people around the world believe, and i would prefer not to push you either towards it or towards my own lack of religion..... Somehow the first seems more probable than the second. Need proof look no further than earlier posters whose personal crusade is to destroy religion.
If/when I have kids, my basic plan is to get them to be intelligent people who are self-sufficient, who don't take **** from people for no good reason, and are able to succeed in life.
On religion, because its prominant in america, and especially because I have, as close friends, people from the following religions: Asatru (norse), buddhist, catholic, muslim, and protestant; I plan to teach them the basic tenets of the religions, the cool stories (thor = badass), the history, a basic overview. I will not be telling them that they are true or not true, but that a certain number of people believe them. I do not want to raise a puppet. When asked what I believe, I will tell them about the little bit of philosophy that I have assembled. I want people who can look at a situation and figure something out, a good skill to have in all facets of life.
Mind you, I am trying for more of a Rick Warren approach to angry atheism
To the first part if it is God killing the blastocysts and not simply a different cause(ie mother smoking, falling etc.) then its still an all knowing God(according to my religion) doing this so I will trust in that. Also gl taking a fetis at such an early age it is almost undetectable. I mean its not like scientists are "aborting" 4 cell blastocysts.... more like 3-6 month babies...
We're talking about the design of the human body, roughly 25-75%. I figure its probably a natural 25% with upwards of 50% more based on enviromental factors. The 25% that is the body itself, gods design right. That would mean god designed the body to kill one in four blasty's.
The thing I was actually going for was that christians shouldn't hold that the soul (whatever that is) enters at conception.
Also, very few babies are ever aborted past the 3 month mark as it gets riskier and risker the larger it gets. 3rd trimester abortions are only ever done when the womens life is at stake. No one is getting "oh **** I don't want a baby" abortions too late in the process. As far as I know, the average women knows she is pregnant in as little as 1-3 weeks (assuming she gets pregnant as soon after her period as possible). There is little reason to get an abortion so late.
As for the second part, I like how you selectively edited my post after quoting it...Nice cutting off the part that doesnt agree with your view/the straw man you where trying to make. My post needs to be taken in context, you took it completely out of context. The point is mobs of people religious or NOT tend to foster extremism. Never did i try to say that Stalin killed people because his Atheist beliefs told him to.
Not my intention. I was only commenting on the groups you referred too.
My point though, is that its much easier to unite a mob with religion than we other stuff. The only other thing that works really really well is nationalism, another way of thinking that turns off the critical thinking parts of your brain.
I don't recall any mob ever going crazy for atheism.
Can you find me any mobs of people doing something in the name of atheism?
Really, you ask something broadly considered impossible by science and the answer ill receive will be a "not now, but later" approach?
Time Travel through FTL speeds was part of einsteins theories, I believe.
The problem is how to get back to the future... (I was hawkings would hurry up and make a flux capacitor)
Whether any given problem is said to be impossible, its only said to be impossible based on our current understanding of how things work. Even with time travel, while we can't do anilikemenything close to what we think will do it, we can say our best guesses and work twoards them or to whatever might spring up accidentally. No need for sarcastic smilies, it was an entirely credible answer
Also beating your children? Spanking maybe but i somehow dont think "beating" your children was acceptable even a hundred years ago.
My friend ruben, as well as his brother daniel were both beaten with a stick when i was a child. Beaten for everyday infractions. Their older brother tony ran away from home to avoid this cruel treatment.
The supporting verse is Proverbs 13:24, spare the rod and spoil the child.
Socially acceptable it was 100 years ago, not as much today, but it still goes on.
I actually wasnt intending to directly attack scientists in particular, my apoligies for that as someone who loves science and discovery it was never my intention to paint them in a bad/evil light as they are all well intentioned(mostly).
Phone argument only works with verbal communication. If you send and email to someone and it gets forwarded ten times the content of the email will not have changed but the interpretation/understanding of it may have.
Telephone game style idea's can work with any medium with a less than 100% accuracy for reproducing someone else. To use email as an example when we are talking about stuff from ages gone by is to strawman. The interpretation is also what is being telephoned, each interpratation building off of previous interpratations being intructed. Occasionally something like the protestant bit comes around, even then, why not go with a master like Martin Luther instead of your common preacher?
Religious freedom is already protected. Bills like this one are, and have been, attempts to skew balance in favor of promoting a particular viewpoint. Being that this is texas, and I know a good many texans (among people I debate onboard, texans tend to be the least equipped to defend themselves and the most ardent supports of christianty)
I figured we where having a decent debate.... This statement however made me lose a lot of respect for you. I am from Texas, and to say i take offense to the ******** stereotypes of my state is to put it lightly. We dont all own oil wells, ride horses, wear cowboy hats etc. We rank in the top 50% on US education systems, have both Baylor and Rice which is equal to most "good" colleges EXCEPT Ivy League. We have 3 of the top ten cities in the US, as well as 2 of the top 5 GDPs for a cities. We have Texas Instruments(you know one of those places full of scientists responsible for our modern way of life). Try to refrain from attacking a state on the basis of personal bias or stereotypes.
The bill lets any given christian use of class time, sports event time, whatever to pray or whatnot. Previouslly, we kept church stuff in churches and learning in schools. I would like to keep it that way.
Also, infringments on freedoms don't come in fell swoops. They come by nickle and diming existing seperation.
I agree with the second statement. The first however i still maintain this bill is too vague to make the case for christianity anymore than islam.
Vegans have alot more going for them than my 7th day Adventist friend who will not eat pork, my catholic friends who won't eat meat on Fridays, or my muslim buddy (I get around.... go navy) who doesn't eat pork, or my etc etc.
While I can't say that vegan is healthier than vegetarian or other diets, its able to be researched. The parents can explain to their kids exactly how eating a certain way gives benefits, even better benefits than other ways of eating. Religion can't do that. I would love to see someone try to prove conclusively, from a nuetral position, that christianity is better than buddhism. Any given two religions really. Hard to discuss because none of them really back up any of the fantastic claims. Vegans do that at least.
Also, I'm not trying to prove anything about vegans. It was an example.
I realize it wasnt specifically about Vegans, my point remains is that most life style choices ARE based on a faith or belief in something, at least the items we pass on to our children.
If/when I have kids, my basic plan is to get them to be intelligent people who are self-sufficient, who don't take **** from people for no good reason, and are able to succeed in life.
On religion, because its prominant in america, and especially because I have, as close friends, people from the following religions: Asatru (norse), buddhist, catholic, muslim, and protestant; I plan to teach them the basic tenets of the religions, the cool stories (thor = badass), the history, a basic overview. I will not be telling them that they are true or not true, but that a certain number of people believe them. I do not want to raise a puppet. When asked what I believe, I will tell them about the little bit of philosophy that I have assembled. I want people who can look at a situation and figure something out, a good skill to have in all facets of life.
Mind you, I am trying for more of a Rick Warren approach to angry atheism
I commend you then but i think you are the exception rather than the rule correct? I mean do you believe most of your fellow atheists will raise there kids in the manner you describe?
We're talking about the design of the human body, roughly 25-75%. I figure its probably a natural 25% with upwards of 50% more based on enviromental factors. The 25% that is the body itself, gods design right. That would mean god designed the body to kill one in four blasty's.
The thing I was actually going for was that christians shouldn't hold that the soul (whatever that is) enters at conception.
Also, very few babies are ever aborted past the 3 month mark as it gets riskier and risker the larger it gets. 3rd trimester abortions are only ever done when the womens life is at stake. No one is getting "oh **** I don't want a baby" abortions too late in the process. As far as I know, the average women knows she is pregnant in as little as 1-3 weeks (assuming she gets pregnant as soon after her period as possible). There is little reason to get an abortion so late.
Not my intention. I was only commenting on the groups you referred too.
My point though, is that its much easier to unite a mob with religion than we other stuff. The only other thing that works really really well is nationalism, another way of thinking that turns off the critical thinking parts of your brain.
I don't recall any mob ever going crazy for atheism.
Can you find me any mobs of people doing something in the name of atheism?
I cant find Atheism bringing people together for anything unless its the broad general hatred of theists and religion in general.
My friend ruben, as well as his brother daniel were both beaten with a stick when i was a child. Beaten for everyday infractions. Their older brother tony ran away from home to avoid this cruel treatment.
The supporting verse is Proverbs 13:24, spare the rod and spoil the child.
Socially acceptable it was 100 years ago, not as much today, but it still goes on.
Still, socially acceptable or not, its christian
Rods where essentially a belt during this time period. Spanking with a belt is an accepted practice in this day and age. I think part of using a instrument instead of a hand is the not touching of "private" areas such as the butt, especially on females. And because your friend was beaten for normal things does not make it normal... surely you recognize that. Also I still disagree that beating for everyday things was acceptable a hundred years ago. Major things like theft etc sure, beatings for not doing your chores one day(unless its a farm where not doing the chores can starve the family) I dont believe it was overly common.
Telephone game style idea's can work with any medium with a less than 100% accuracy for reproducing someone else. To use email as an example when we are talking about stuff from ages gone by is to strawman. The interpretation is also what is being telephoned, each interpratation building off of previous interpratations being intructed. Occasionally something like the protestant bit comes around, even then, why not go with a master like Martin Luther instead of your common preacher?
Who said you have to go off anyone? Or who said you only go off one. I prefer to use my reasoning and knowledge to review the bible only going to more educated(in biblical matters) in order to find specific passages.
I'm not stereotyping. I'm in the navy, so I meet a wide variety of people from around america and the world in large. I know alot of people from texas. I said what I had experienced. Nothing more, nothing less. I didn't bring up anything about oil or cowboys, just that many texans I have met are very religious and don't have much to back it up. I was not attempting to insult anyone. You guys gave us president bush too, thats a mark against you
I know there are smart texans, my friend Derrick just became a radar operation tech, cool stuff. Then again, I also knew a guy by the name of Keller who routinely told me I was going to hell and that god hated ****. There were, at least in the navy, more people like keller than derrick sadly. One of em actually told me I'd be lynched if I had talked like I did in his hometown (barracks religious discussion)
I agree with the second statement. The first however i still maintain this bill is too vague to make the case for christianity anymore than islam.
The bill doesn't mention a specific religion by name, but then again, it doesn't need to. The ones introducing this are making it to give school districts and themselves ammo to fight the ACLU with when someone tries to get a school to not pander/discriminate.
I realize it wasnt specifically about Vegans, my point remains is that most life style choices ARE based on a faith or belief in something, at least the items we pass on to our children.
Believing in something and faith are two different things. I don't have faith that drinking coffee will keep me awake longer. Whether or not a vegan uses blind acceptance of children to get them to be vegans doesn't detract from the possible positive health benefits, not that I know, but there are actual studies of it. This differs from religion where we have people who instill through faith but don't have the other options available.
I have a question for you, if you were to wake up tomorrow without any knowledge of religion and then discovered the koran, the bible, and the religious texts of any other group on a table and began to read them how would you figure out the right one?
I commend you then but i think you are the exception rather than the rule correct? I mean do you believe most of your fellow atheists will raise there kids in the manner you describe?
Not really. Very few atheists are raving about it. There is no real need to angrily debunk something to someone that doesn't believe it yet. The general consensus among the online community I am apart of (www.freeratio.org my name is Jaecp) tends to hold that when a person isn't predisposed to religion as a child and forced into thinking that way, they will generally make up their own mind. Much better that way.
That same idea kinda goes with my question after the last quote.
I cant find Atheism bringing people together for anything unless its the broad general hatred of theists and religion in general.
Few atheists hate theists in general. We tend to really dislike particular ones like, say, Jerry Falwell, Hitler, or Kent Hovind, but what tends to bring atheists together is as a reaction to getting pushed around by the (currently, but decreasing) majority. Whenever one of these things happen, we aren't trying to instill atheism in other, but to get a fair playing field for all when its not in a private area.
In terms of conversation, I can be pretty fiery when I want to be, but have as of late tried a more conversation style tone (fire also doesn't translate well via the tubes)
Alot of the atheists I know are deeply concerned with some of the long term applications of religion, particularly that the devout have less of an incentive to worry about the longterm carry of the planet. I mean, if christ is back in your lifetime, why care about the people living here 100 years from now, right?
That part there scares me, not to stereotype texas, but do you know at least one person who believes so strongly that christ is coming back in the battle of armageddon that they would welcome the first nuclear bombs in some sort of WW3 as a sign of christs imminent return. Scary thoughts, not universally christian I admit (how many people do you know who think christ is coming "soon" still invest in 401k?)
Rods where essentially a belt during this time period. Spanking with a belt is an accepted practice in this day and age. I think part of using a instrument instead of a hand is the not touching of "private" areas such as the butt, especially on females. And because your friend was beaten for normal things does not make it normal... surely you recognize that. Also I still disagree that beating for everyday things was acceptable a hundred years ago. Major things like theft etc sure, beatings for not doing your chores one day(unless its a farm where not doing the chores can starve the family) I dont believe it was overly common.
How do you go from rod to belt? Rods are very simply a long thin pieces of metal or wood. Belts were very commonly used, ease of access and a bit of fear when you take your belt off added to the effectiveness.
Spanking in general is generating alot of heat nowadays actually. Few places outside texas really advocate corporal punishment (not to stereotype, but as Jeff Foxworth? Said "most states are advocating to eliminating the death penalty, we're putting in a speed line")
Your state does have some pretty famous thing different from the rest of the union.
Who said you have to go off anyone? Or who said you only go off one. I prefer to use my reasoning and knowledge to review the bible only going to more educated(in biblical matters) in order to find specific passages.
I would say that as nifty as it is to read a book yourself and draw conclusions, there are alot of nastiness that you will need to find ways to excuse yourself from if you want to actually follow it. Reasons why you'd not follow a certain rule or that some atrocity was a metaphor or something.
Hell, the story of Lots daughters or Abraham and Issac still creep me out when I think about them.
Anyway,
I gotta go to sleep, I need to be up at 2am for watch. I will try to reply to anything anyone says during that time, so give me plenty to think about ;0
So, how exactly does a certain religions background do anything to make its values and morals any less wholesome?
This is how...
There was a psychology test done with kids of a certain religion, and I'm not saying which, so you won't have the defense of "but you only hate this particular religion!", not that I think it matters, and it would've worked the same way with any other religion.
A group of children were told a known story from a book sacred to that religion, where a certain religious figure destroys a city of non-believers. They were then asked whether they justify those actions. More than half said yes, explaining away that figure's actions by "he had to do it", "oh well, god told him to", "those were non-believers anyway, so no big loss", and similar weasly explanations.
Another group of similar kids (a control group) were told a similar story, but with names and locations changed (General Zhao of ancient China sacking and destroying some chinese city because the spirits of his ancestors told him to). This time, only a small handful supported his actions.
So, to answer your questions, a certain religions background makes its values and morals any less wholesome because so many religious kids in the survey were willing to excuse or explain away mass murder as long as it was done on behalf of their religion - but when presented with a religion-neutral description of the same thing, suddenly were able to "wisen up".
Quote from {G}PiLeDrIvEr »
It's funny how you talk about certain aspects of the bible as symptoms, as if religion is some deadly disease on society.
There was a psychology test done with kids of a certain religion, and I'm not saying which, so you won't have the defense of "but you only hate this particular religion!", not that I think it matters, and it would've worked the same way with any other religion.
A group of children were told a known story from a book sacred to that religion, where a certain religious figure destroys a city of non-believers. They were then asked whether they justify those actions. More than half said yes, explaining away that figure's actions by "he had to do it", "oh well, god told him to", "those were non-believers anyway, so no big loss", and similar weasly explanations.
Another group of similar kids (a control group) were told a similar story, but with names and locations changed (General Zhao of ancient China sacking and destroying some chinese city because the spirits of his ancestors told him to). This time, only a small handful supported his actions.
So, did you notice the fact that the survey was done on children ?
You gotta do better then that.
So I'm to believe religious adults have the same lack of cognitive function and maturity as religious children?
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, did you notice the fact that the survey was done on children ?
Yes! Children who were taught religion! And they are willing to excuse mass murder! And the topic of the current discussion is "Should children be taught religion" - what a coincidence. Btw, I'm amazed at your willingness to explain/excuse away everything, you would have done well in that survey.
So I'm to believe religious adults have the same lack of cognitive function and maturity as religious children?
So basically what you're trying to say here is: "Well, okay, I acknowledge that religious studies turn kids into mass-murder apologists ... but by the time they become adults they ... uhm, get better! So it's all good!"
There was a psychology test done with kids of a certain religion, and I'm not saying which, so you won't have the defense of "but you only hate this particular religion!", not that I think it matters...
A malicious insinuation doesn't make you clever. It's, to use your word, weaselly. It's an attempt to impose a certain framework of thought without actual argument, and {G}PiLeDrIvEr is absolutely right to call you out on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes! Children who were taught religion! And the topic of the current discussion is "Should children be taught religion" - what a coincidence. Btw, I'm amazed at your willingness to explain away everything, I wish I had your staunch steadfastness in face of fact.
Little children also believe in Santa Claus and the Boogeyman.
If you want to prove any valid point, at least ask them after they recieve at least some critical thinking power and some real-life experience.
But you're right. Honestly, I'm surprised this country is still standing, considering all these children that wouldn't care about geneocide in the name of god growing up and entering our society.
Surely this decay of morals would have had disastrous effects on society by now.
So basically what you're trying to say here is: "Well, okay, I acknowledge that religious studies turn kids into mass-murder apologists ... but by the time they become adults they ... uhm, get better! So it's all good!"
You're right, I totally forgot, kids aren't naive and gullible at all :rolleyes:.
EDIT: :rofl:, you should probably try asking them when they know what murder even means.
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.
The way I see it, the beliefs of another person neither break my leg or pick my pocket. Children should learn to adapt to religion early, but only through drawing their own conclusions. It isn't right to force your beliefs on someone else, but bringing your kids to church definitely doesn't cross the line. It might be educational for children who are going to end up living in a society with religion. At any rate it's at least to the most secular atheist good storytelling, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH / MTG: Commander decks (all under construction): GWU Rafiq of the Many GWU (50% complete) RG Wort, the Raidmother RG (40% complete) WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU (20% complete)
A malicious insinuation doesn't make you clever. It's, to use your word, weaselly. It's an attempt to impose a certain framework of thought without actual argument, and {G}PiLeDrIvEr is absolutely right to call you out on it.
I'm sorry, but I thought I made it entirely obvious that I consider religion a blight on mankind. I don't know how much more obvious I could have made it, and when GPiledriver acted as if he just discovered it after we went back-and-forth 20 times or so, I was naturally amused. There is nothing weasly about my claims, I'm making them right here in the open.
If you want to prove any valid point, at least ask them after they recieve at least some critical thinking power and some real-life experience.
So it's ok to teach children an unproven dogma in the face of which they will excuse mass murder of supporters of ... another unproven dogma, as long as we hope that at some point in the future they will receive some critical thinking power and some real-life experience?
It matters in that you have no citation.
In case you care for factual correctness, read "The God Delusion", it's all there with sources and citations. Btw I note my other opponent, GPiledriver, didn't contest factual correctness.
So it's ok to teach children an unproven dogma in the face of which they will excuse mass murder of supporters of ... another unproven dogma, as long as we hope that at some point in the future they will receive some critical thinking power and some real-life experience?
So children don't grow up nowadays?
Honestly, how many people do you know that have kept the same level of critically thinking as they did when they were a child.
Theres none. So basically that whole 'example' told me what I already knew: That children are easily swayable.
In case you care for factual correctness, read "The God Delusion", it's all there with sources and citations. Btw I note my other opponent, GPiledriver, didn't contest factual correctness.
I honestly don't care. It doesn't prove anything anyway.
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.
...read "The God Delusion", it's all there with sources and citations.
Better. But how about instead of sending us out to the bookstore to buy a whole book in these trying times, and then asking us to read blindly through a thoroughly distasteful Dawkinsian polemic until we stumble across the passage you're referring to, you just cite the damn study?
Btw I note my other opponent, GPiledriver, didn't contest factual correctness.
So? Maybe he's already familiar with the study. Maybe he's an especially gullible third-year kindergartener. (No offense, G.) Either way, his judgment is his own, not all of ours.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm sorry, but I thought I made it entirely obvious that I consider religion a blight on mankind. I don't know how much more obvious I could have made it, and when GPiledriver acted as if he just discovered it after we went back-and-forth 20 times or so, I was naturally amused. There is nothing weasly about my claims, I'm making them right here in the open.
Effin'-A, man. So institutional religion is a hopelessly destructive force on the world? A disease that must be purged? I agree that we need a new system (cf. combustion -> something useful) but we can't discount the old.
Can you at least accept the Nietzschean point of view: That God is effectively dead, and was never a real entity, but the idea of God was necessary to bring about much of Western civilization?
Honestly, even as someone who considers himself nonreligious (although somewhat theist) these "angry atheist" positions really get my hackles raised just as much as glossy-eyed evangelism would.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
He most likely read about that study in The End of Faith, the test used kids in israel. Possibly TGD, I think it was TEOF though One group was given a story of the invasion of the promised land by whoever, and the other group had the exact same story, but the name's and locations were replaced with chinese ones.
I think thats pretty alarming.
I agree that its very likely if you had taken other people of a given religion and done the same style test that you'd get similiar results. Children are very honest when it comes to some things, particularly when raised to be proud of their religion.
Little children also believe in Santa Claus and the Boogeyman.
If you want to prove any valid point, at least ask them after they recieve at least some critical thinking power and some real-life experience.
The difference is, we eventually tell them that santa/boogeyman are fake after awhile, but don't with other things that don't actually make alot of sense.
Children with critical thinking power and some real life experience? I would love to wait for them to have this before teaching it to them in the first place, by NOT doing this we put it into their heads before they can think for themselves and it gets kinda stuck there.
The way I see it, the beliefs of another person neither break my leg or pick my pocket. Children should learn to adapt to religion early, but only through drawing their own conclusions. It isn't right to force your beliefs on someone else, but bringing your kids to church definitely doesn't cross the line. It might be educational for children who are going to end up living in a society with religion. At any rate it's at least to the most secular atheist good storytelling, right?
Religious belief's do affect other people. Life saving medicine that isn't available because of religious sentiment, children who don't recieve treatment because of religious sentiment, and people pushing religious law into public law.
Children should not learn to adapt to a religion early, how can they possibly choose "The Right One™", there are as of the last census 32800 denominations of christianity in america, let alone the world. Then we have all the OTHER myriad of religions. There is no way I could have chosen christianity of my own supposedly free will when I began going to sunday school as a child. I was put into a christian pre-preschool at age 2!
Good storytelling? Sure, as long as you don't say I need to think it happened or I will be tortured forever.
To those that want the study cited, can't do that right now as I don't have access to the book to look it up. Stuck on my boat for another 7 hours. For whatever my word is worth Alx2 isn't embellishing anything to my recolection.
Effin'-A, man. So institutional religion is a hopelessly destructive force on the world? A disease that must be purged? I agree that we need a new system (cf. combustion -> something useful) but we can't discount the old.
Can you at least accept the Nietzschean point of view: That God is effectively dead, and was never a real entity, but the idea of God was necessary to bring about much of Western civilization?
Honestly, even as someone who considers himself nonreligious (although somewhat theist) these "angry atheist" positions really get my hackles raised just as much as glossy-eyed evangelism would.
Why can't we discount the old? Your average non-fundy christian has tossed out giant chunks of the bible, has little to no knowledge of most of the crap we discuss in the threads here, and more or less goes about their day not thinking too much about it, yes?
There is even a growing bit called "cultural christianity" of people who are generally agnostic, but do what secular jews do for christianity.
Your bit about Nietzche is all the more reason to admit that christianities time is over, to move on, get better, and try to get a more enlightened view worked out.
That said, I do hope I don't bring the hackles out in anyone here:D
So instead of investigating further for yourself, you've turned into an apologist. Perhaps you're convinced that the 54% must be inflated because you don't see much bigotry first hand, and if you personally don't witness it as often, it's probably not true, right?
IknowyouarebutwhatamI. Perhaps your anecdotal evidence is, in turn, clouding your judgment.
It's your argument. Investigate it yourself, so that you aren't reduced to leaping from "54% literal" to "54% anti-woman".
Yes! Children who were taught religion! And they are willing to excuse mass murder! And the topic of the current discussion is "Should children be taught religion" - what a coincidence. Btw, I'm amazed at your willingness to explain/excuse away everything, you would have done well in that survey.
So basically what you're trying to say here is: "Well, okay, I acknowledge that religious studies turn kids into mass-murder apologists ... but by the time they become adults they ... uhm, get better! So it's all good!"
Your bias proved exactly my point: humans are equally comprised of reason and emotion.
In reason, presuming that all religion is inherently evil is a presumptuous argument beleaguered by emotion with corrupted reason.
The culture of a people is directly linked to its philosophical beliefs and way of life. Granted, there are beliefs that degenerate into jihad and so forth. However, religion encompasses sustainable agricultural traditions, ways of life, and other such patterns of human life that have allowed mankind to live for centuries in tune with their environment.
So if A Believes in B and B Contains C then A believes C
Since literalists believe the bible unconditionally, and the bible contains several bits of nastiness, including the anti-women passages, then literalists naturally believe the anti-women bits.
So if A Believes in B and B Contains C then A believes C
Since literalists believe the bible unconditionally, and the bible contains several bits of nastiness, including the anti-women passages, then literalists naturally believe the anti-women bits.
Under part of sola scriptura there's a cheap shot mechanic that bipasses that. Basically, an unclear portion of the scripture must be interpretted by more clear passages.
So if A is unclear, read B, if B is unclear read C. So since C is said by "God," then it must be the "truer text."
Then there's screwing with canonization and rejecting certain canon for others, or adding in apocrypha. Some reject Paul altogether as corrupting the original message of Christ for example.
Scripture can worm itself and adapt in a plethora of ways as it had in the past.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
That scriptures needs to worm itself out of unpleasantries is definately a mark against it as a whole. That you need to do all this work figuring it out, is all the more reason to not introduce it to children who aren't anywhere near able to do this until they are older.
Edit: I have no idea what sola scripture is. However, its not the unclear parts of the bible I'm worried about, the parts that bother me are the passages I understand completely (thank you Mr. Clemens)
That scriptures needs to worm itself out of unpleasantries is definately a mark against it as a whole. That you need to do all this work figuring it out, is all the more reason to not introduce it to children who aren't anywhere near able to do this until they are older.
Edit: I have no idea what sola scripture is. However, its not the unclear parts of the bible I'm worried about, the parts that bother me are the passages I understand completely (thank you Mr. Clemens)
Well, the "canon" is just another device created by the institution of the Church to sustain itself. Without codifying a specific list of "approved texts," it would be facing a very destabilizing set of writings cropping up all the time. In fact, Christian teachings were becoming "diluted" by local traditions. And because the Church locked in that list in 300 A.D. or so, Christians today have to deal with a package that reflects what was socially acceptable at that time.
"Sola scriptura" is the idea that the Bible is the one and only Truth. Naturally this interpretation can lead to some serious cognitive dissonance ("If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out," etc.) so the fundamentalists kinda ignore the vagaries and look to other passages to explain the previous ones. Fallacious? Probably, since a lot of the books in the Bible are wholly unrelated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Sidenote, as I sit here at 330 in the morning, there is an infomercial on TV from tomorrowsworld.org some sort of magazine where the spokesperson is explaining how revelations is just around the corner,
Anyway,
BACK ON TOPIC!
Yeah, there were a number of concils by early church fathers, the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365 was the first to make a list, this list changed at future councils. The books on the approved lists of cannon was a matter of vote of church leaders attending these functions.
Many a bible accepted by one group has had a good number of books not in there. Notably Martin Luther, founder of the protestant movement, didn't believe in 6 books you will probably find in your bible. (I wish I could leave this office to OMG!!!! hahaha MR T is on an informercial and is hitting things with frozen meat. He is shilling the "Flavor Wave Turbo Oven" hahahhaha)
Erm... anyway, sorry.
That part about "if your eye causes you to sin" is silly anyway, and just goes to show the primitive nature of these writings. Your body parts don't cause the sin, they are all controlled by the brain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can trust me, I work for the government
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why throw them into things that children to not even understand when you could easily wait until they are of age to make better decisions for themselves? I don't see it as necessary to hold back any information about any religion or belittle it when the child has questions, but forcing it upon a child as their only option seems unfortunate. You can have good morals without being religious. No one needs the fear of going to Hell in order to be a good kid or person.
Sale/Buy List!!!
Trade Thread---V
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=89415 - Down atm
Sell/Buy List--V
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7460848#post7460848
Twitter!!
http://twitter.com/AaronRWilburn
Sexist Discrimination
A focus on control over actually improving life and society
Religious edicts elevated to moral imperatives
There is a downward trend for literal belief, that part is true.
The complaint atheists have with the 10 commandments is that most of them have little to do with morality, and that the only good ones are already present in every other lasting system of morality. (peoples who murder each other constantly aren't going to survive long, right?)
What is your last statement supposed to say, anyway?
Anyway,
Children should not be indoctrinated into any system that makes assertions without a reasonable amount of factual backing.
Because we have reasonable alternative delivery methods for basic morality, the threshold for tolerating a system that produces bad stuff should be low.
Given that multiple competing systems make similiar claims, coupled with outside observers able to differentiate these claims, the best course of action is to hold off until the affected person can make a better judgement call. Two 9 year olds, one raised christian and the other hindu, can only offer that their respective parents raised them that way and they feel something in services.
Also, people have attributed the same kinds of feelings they get in your average church to going to a concert or even through the use of exotic substances (many religions actually use these to get closer to their deity)
Basically, since we can't nail down where the feelings come from, since we can't sit down with each holy text in front of us and choose the best one empyrically, and since we know that people tend to follow the system that they were told at kids long past reasonable evidence has presented itself, the following is what I would consider the best course of action.
Teach your kid to have an open mind.
Teach your kid to think about whether something makes sense or not
Teach your kid to think about how to prove whether something is right or wrong
Teach your kid to be a nice person, helpful to himself, others and his community
Teach your kid to respect other people, but not at the expense of his wellbeing.
Don't teach your kid to believe things without thinking them through
Don't teach your kid anything that can cause them to hate
Don't teach your kid anything that is going to hurt them
Don't teach your kid anything you can't prove or follow
Don't teach your kid to follow blindly
Also,
Do teach your kid magic, because its awsome and stuff.
The problem is you fail to see the great potential benefits of religion, and, even if you do, it is always outweighed by the personal bias you have against it.
Because lets face it, if your main reason for not wanting religion to be taught to children is that you think it fails at what you think it's trying to do for you, is pretty biased.
It's funny how you talk about certain aspects of the bible as symptoms, as if religion is some deadly disease on society.
So now you've added another reason why you hate religion to the list:
Because you think all religions backgrounds are suspect.
So, how exactly does a certain religions background do anything to make its values and morals any less wholesome?
That's where you and I agree.
This law is very vague and seems to be founded on the idea of protecting freedom of religion rather than forcing Christianity on someone.
That isnt nearly as devious as our dear scientists want to make it sound. I do think it is worded incorrectly but nowhere in there does it say "this bill is for shoving protestant Christianity down everyones throat."
On the perceived health benefits. Find me undeniable proof(in other words a scientist that isnt biased) that Vegan is healthier than say vegetarian or a balanced diet. Until you can do that its still a form of faith.
That seems a little suprising? I mean teach it as in "this is what dumbass christians believe"? or this is a religion and what many people around the world believe, and i would prefer not to push you either towards it or towards my own lack of religion..... Somehow the first seems more probable than the second. Need proof look no further than earlier posters whose personal crusade is to destroy religion.
Finally someone found a credible statistic for this. We can finally put that issue to rest as a debate point.
To the first part if it is God killing the blastocysts and not simply a different cause(ie mother smoking, falling etc.) then its still an all knowing God(according to my religion) doing this so I will trust in that. Also gl taking a fetis at such an early age it is almost undetectable. I mean its not like scientists are "aborting" 4 cell blastocysts.... more like 3-6 month babies...
As for the second part, I like how you selectively edited my post after quoting it...Nice cutting off the part that doesnt agree with your view/the straw man you where trying to make. My post needs to be taken in context, you took it completely out of context. The point is mobs of people religious or NOT tend to foster extremism. Never did i try to say that Stalin killed people because his Atheist beliefs told him to.
Really, you ask something broadly considered impossible by science and the answer ill receive will be a "not now, but later" approach?
Also beating your children? Spanking maybe but i somehow dont think "beating" your children was acceptable even a hundred years ago.
I actually wasnt intending to directly attack scientists in particular, my apoligies for that as someone who loves science and discovery it was never my intention to paint them in a bad/evil light as they are all well intentioned(mostly).
Phone argument only works with verbal communication. If you send and email to someone and it gets forwarded ten times the content of the email will not have changed but the interpretation/understanding of it may have.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Religious freedom is already protected. Bills like this one are, and have been, attempts to skew balance in favor of promoting a particular viewpoint. Being that this is texas, and I know a good many texans (among people I debate onboard, texans tend to be the least equipped to defend themselves and the most ardent supports of christianty)
The bill lets any given christian use of class time, sports event time, whatever to pray or whatnot. Previouslly, we kept church stuff in churches and learning in schools. I would like to keep it that way.
Also, infringments on freedoms don't come in fell swoops. They come by nickle and diming existing seperation.
Vegans have alot more going for them than my 7th day adventist friend who will not eat pork, my catholic friends who won't eat meat on fridays, or my muslim buddy (I get around.... go navy) who doesn't eat pork, or my etc etc.
While I can't say that vegan is healthier than vegetarian or other diets, its able to be researched. The parents can explain to their kids exactly how eating a certain way gives benefits, even better benefits than other ways of eating. Religion can't do that. I would love to see someone try to prove conclusively, from a nuetral position, that christianity is better than buddhism. Any given two religions really. Hard to discuss because none of them really back up any of the fantastic claims. Vegans do that at least.
Also, I'm not trying to prove anything about vegans. It was an example.
If/when I have kids, my basic plan is to get them to be intelligent people who are self-sufficient, who don't take **** from people for no good reason, and are able to succeed in life.
On religion, because its prominant in america, and especially because I have, as close friends, people from the following religions: Asatru (norse), buddhist, catholic, muslim, and protestant; I plan to teach them the basic tenets of the religions, the cool stories (thor = badass), the history, a basic overview. I will not be telling them that they are true or not true, but that a certain number of people believe them. I do not want to raise a puppet. When asked what I believe, I will tell them about the little bit of philosophy that I have assembled. I want people who can look at a situation and figure something out, a good skill to have in all facets of life.
Mind you, I am trying for more of a Rick Warren approach to angry atheism
Yes yes, I'm awsome
The pewforum is another good thing to google up for stats on religion, by religious people, who try to maintain as little bias as possible.
We're talking about the design of the human body, roughly 25-75%. I figure its probably a natural 25% with upwards of 50% more based on enviromental factors. The 25% that is the body itself, gods design right. That would mean god designed the body to kill one in four blasty's.
The thing I was actually going for was that christians shouldn't hold that the soul (whatever that is) enters at conception.
Also, very few babies are ever aborted past the 3 month mark as it gets riskier and risker the larger it gets. 3rd trimester abortions are only ever done when the womens life is at stake. No one is getting "oh **** I don't want a baby" abortions too late in the process. As far as I know, the average women knows she is pregnant in as little as 1-3 weeks (assuming she gets pregnant as soon after her period as possible). There is little reason to get an abortion so late.
Not my intention. I was only commenting on the groups you referred too.
My point though, is that its much easier to unite a mob with religion than we other stuff. The only other thing that works really really well is nationalism, another way of thinking that turns off the critical thinking parts of your brain.
I don't recall any mob ever going crazy for atheism.
Can you find me any mobs of people doing something in the name of atheism?
Time Travel through FTL speeds was part of einsteins theories, I believe.
The problem is how to get back to the future... (I was hawkings would hurry up and make a flux capacitor)
Whether any given problem is said to be impossible, its only said to be impossible based on our current understanding of how things work. Even with time travel, while we can't do anilikemenything close to what we think will do it, we can say our best guesses and work twoards them or to whatever might spring up accidentally. No need for sarcastic smilies, it was an entirely credible answer
My friend ruben, as well as his brother daniel were both beaten with a stick when i was a child. Beaten for everyday infractions. Their older brother tony ran away from home to avoid this cruel treatment.
The supporting verse is Proverbs 13:24, spare the rod and spoil the child.
Socially acceptable it was 100 years ago, not as much today, but it still goes on.
Still, socially acceptable or not, its christian
K, forgiven
Telephone game style idea's can work with any medium with a less than 100% accuracy for reproducing someone else. To use email as an example when we are talking about stuff from ages gone by is to strawman. The interpretation is also what is being telephoned, each interpratation building off of previous interpratations being intructed. Occasionally something like the protestant bit comes around, even then, why not go with a master like Martin Luther instead of your common preacher?
I figured we where having a decent debate.... This statement however made me lose a lot of respect for you. I am from Texas, and to say i take offense to the ******** stereotypes of my state is to put it lightly. We dont all own oil wells, ride horses, wear cowboy hats etc. We rank in the top 50% on US education systems, have both Baylor and Rice which is equal to most "good" colleges EXCEPT Ivy League. We have 3 of the top ten cities in the US, as well as 2 of the top 5 GDPs for a cities. We have Texas Instruments(you know one of those places full of scientists responsible for our modern way of life). Try to refrain from attacking a state on the basis of personal bias or stereotypes.
I agree with the second statement. The first however i still maintain this bill is too vague to make the case for christianity anymore than islam.
I realize it wasnt specifically about Vegans, my point remains is that most life style choices ARE based on a faith or belief in something, at least the items we pass on to our children.
I commend you then but i think you are the exception rather than the rule correct? I mean do you believe most of your fellow atheists will raise there kids in the manner you describe?
My mistake on this about the trimesters.
I cant find Atheism bringing people together for anything unless its the broad general hatred of theists and religion in general.
Rods where essentially a belt during this time period. Spanking with a belt is an accepted practice in this day and age. I think part of using a instrument instead of a hand is the not touching of "private" areas such as the butt, especially on females. And because your friend was beaten for normal things does not make it normal... surely you recognize that. Also I still disagree that beating for everyday things was acceptable a hundred years ago. Major things like theft etc sure, beatings for not doing your chores one day(unless its a farm where not doing the chores can starve the family) I dont believe it was overly common.
Who said you have to go off anyone? Or who said you only go off one. I prefer to use my reasoning and knowledge to review the bible only going to more educated(in biblical matters) in order to find specific passages.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
I know there are smart texans, my friend Derrick just became a radar operation tech, cool stuff. Then again, I also knew a guy by the name of Keller who routinely told me I was going to hell and that god hated ****. There were, at least in the navy, more people like keller than derrick sadly. One of em actually told me I'd be lynched if I had talked like I did in his hometown (barracks religious discussion)
The bill doesn't mention a specific religion by name, but then again, it doesn't need to. The ones introducing this are making it to give school districts and themselves ammo to fight the ACLU with when someone tries to get a school to not pander/discriminate.
Believing in something and faith are two different things. I don't have faith that drinking coffee will keep me awake longer. Whether or not a vegan uses blind acceptance of children to get them to be vegans doesn't detract from the possible positive health benefits, not that I know, but there are actual studies of it. This differs from religion where we have people who instill through faith but don't have the other options available.
I have a question for you, if you were to wake up tomorrow without any knowledge of religion and then discovered the koran, the bible, and the religious texts of any other group on a table and began to read them how would you figure out the right one?
Not really. Very few atheists are raving about it. There is no real need to angrily debunk something to someone that doesn't believe it yet. The general consensus among the online community I am apart of (www.freeratio.org my name is Jaecp) tends to hold that when a person isn't predisposed to religion as a child and forced into thinking that way, they will generally make up their own mind. Much better that way.
That same idea kinda goes with my question after the last quote.
Few atheists hate theists in general. We tend to really dislike particular ones like, say, Jerry Falwell, Hitler, or Kent Hovind, but what tends to bring atheists together is as a reaction to getting pushed around by the (currently, but decreasing) majority. Whenever one of these things happen, we aren't trying to instill atheism in other, but to get a fair playing field for all when its not in a private area.
In terms of conversation, I can be pretty fiery when I want to be, but have as of late tried a more conversation style tone (fire also doesn't translate well via the tubes)
Alot of the atheists I know are deeply concerned with some of the long term applications of religion, particularly that the devout have less of an incentive to worry about the longterm carry of the planet. I mean, if christ is back in your lifetime, why care about the people living here 100 years from now, right?
That part there scares me, not to stereotype texas, but do you know at least one person who believes so strongly that christ is coming back in the battle of armageddon that they would welcome the first nuclear bombs in some sort of WW3 as a sign of christs imminent return. Scary thoughts, not universally christian I admit (how many people do you know who think christ is coming "soon" still invest in 401k?)
How do you go from rod to belt? Rods are very simply a long thin pieces of metal or wood. Belts were very commonly used, ease of access and a bit of fear when you take your belt off added to the effectiveness.
Spanking in general is generating alot of heat nowadays actually. Few places outside texas really advocate corporal punishment (not to stereotype, but as Jeff Foxworth? Said "most states are advocating to eliminating the death penalty, we're putting in a speed line")
Your state does have some pretty famous thing different from the rest of the union.
I would say that as nifty as it is to read a book yourself and draw conclusions, there are alot of nastiness that you will need to find ways to excuse yourself from if you want to actually follow it. Reasons why you'd not follow a certain rule or that some atrocity was a metaphor or something.
Hell, the story of Lots daughters or Abraham and Issac still creep me out when I think about them.
Anyway,
I gotta go to sleep, I need to be up at 2am for watch. I will try to reply to anything anyone says during that time, so give me plenty to think about ;0
This is how...
There was a psychology test done with kids of a certain religion, and I'm not saying which, so you won't have the defense of "but you only hate this particular religion!", not that I think it matters, and it would've worked the same way with any other religion.
A group of children were told a known story from a book sacred to that religion, where a certain religious figure destroys a city of non-believers. They were then asked whether they justify those actions. More than half said yes, explaining away that figure's actions by "he had to do it", "oh well, god told him to", "those were non-believers anyway, so no big loss", and similar weasly explanations.
Another group of similar kids (a control group) were told a similar story, but with names and locations changed (General Zhao of ancient China sacking and destroying some chinese city because the spirits of his ancestors told him to). This time, only a small handful supported his actions.
So, to answer your questions, a certain religions background makes its values and morals any less wholesome because so many religious kids in the survey were willing to excuse or explain away mass murder as long as it was done on behalf of their religion - but when presented with a religion-neutral description of the same thing, suddenly were able to "wisen up".
An astute observation.
So, did you notice the fact that the survey was done on children ?
You gotta do better then that.
So I'm to believe religious adults have the same lack of cognitive function and maturity as religious children?
Yes! Children who were taught religion! And they are willing to excuse mass murder! And the topic of the current discussion is "Should children be taught religion" - what a coincidence. Btw, I'm amazed at your willingness to explain/excuse away everything, you would have done well in that survey.
So basically what you're trying to say here is: "Well, okay, I acknowledge that religious studies turn kids into mass-murder apologists ... but by the time they become adults they ... uhm, get better! So it's all good!"
It matters in that you have no citation.
Now there's a claim that's just begging to be put to the test.
A malicious insinuation doesn't make you clever. It's, to use your word, weaselly. It's an attempt to impose a certain framework of thought without actual argument, and {G}PiLeDrIvEr is absolutely right to call you out on it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Little children also believe in Santa Claus and the Boogeyman.
If you want to prove any valid point, at least ask them after they recieve at least some critical thinking power and some real-life experience.
But you're right. Honestly, I'm surprised this country is still standing, considering all these children that wouldn't care about geneocide in the name of god growing up and entering our society.
Surely this decay of morals would have had disastrous effects on society by now.
You're right, I totally forgot, kids aren't naive and gullible at all :rolleyes:.
EDIT: :rofl:, you should probably try asking them when they know what murder even means.
GWU Rafiq of the Many GWU (50% complete)
RG Wort, the Raidmother RG (40% complete)
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU (20% complete)
So it's ok to teach children an unproven dogma in the face of which they will excuse mass murder of supporters of ... another unproven dogma, as long as we hope that at some point in the future they will receive some critical thinking power and some real-life experience?
In case you care for factual correctness, read "The God Delusion", it's all there with sources and citations. Btw I note my other opponent, GPiledriver, didn't contest factual correctness.
So children don't grow up nowadays?
Honestly, how many people do you know that have kept the same level of critically thinking as they did when they were a child.
Theres none. So basically that whole 'example' told me what I already knew: That children are easily swayable.
I honestly don't care. It doesn't prove anything anyway.
You expect us not to? Disturbing. If you're always this flippant about basic citation discipline, I sure hope you're not in academia.
Better. But how about instead of sending us out to the bookstore to buy a whole book in these trying times, and then asking us to read blindly through a thoroughly distasteful Dawkinsian polemic until we stumble across the passage you're referring to, you just cite the damn study?
So? Maybe he's already familiar with the study. Maybe he's an especially gullible third-year kindergartener. (No offense, G.) Either way, his judgment is his own, not all of ours.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Effin'-A, man. So institutional religion is a hopelessly destructive force on the world? A disease that must be purged? I agree that we need a new system (cf. combustion -> something useful) but we can't discount the old.
Can you at least accept the Nietzschean point of view: That God is effectively dead, and was never a real entity, but the idea of God was necessary to bring about much of Western civilization?
Honestly, even as someone who considers himself nonreligious (although somewhat theist) these "angry atheist" positions really get my hackles raised just as much as glossy-eyed evangelism would.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
He most likely read about that study in The End of Faith, the test used kids in israel. Possibly TGD, I think it was TEOF though One group was given a story of the invasion of the promised land by whoever, and the other group had the exact same story, but the name's and locations were replaced with chinese ones.
I think thats pretty alarming.
I agree that its very likely if you had taken other people of a given religion and done the same style test that you'd get similiar results. Children are very honest when it comes to some things, particularly when raised to be proud of their religion.
The difference is, we eventually tell them that santa/boogeyman are fake after awhile, but don't with other things that don't actually make alot of sense.
Children with critical thinking power and some real life experience? I would love to wait for them to have this before teaching it to them in the first place, by NOT doing this we put it into their heads before they can think for themselves and it gets kinda stuck there.
Religious belief's do affect other people. Life saving medicine that isn't available because of religious sentiment, children who don't recieve treatment because of religious sentiment, and people pushing religious law into public law.
Children should not learn to adapt to a religion early, how can they possibly choose "The Right One™", there are as of the last census 32800 denominations of christianity in america, let alone the world. Then we have all the OTHER myriad of religions. There is no way I could have chosen christianity of my own supposedly free will when I began going to sunday school as a child. I was put into a christian pre-preschool at age 2!
Good storytelling? Sure, as long as you don't say I need to think it happened or I will be tortured forever.
To those that want the study cited, can't do that right now as I don't have access to the book to look it up. Stuck on my boat for another 7 hours. For whatever my word is worth Alx2 isn't embellishing anything to my recolection.
Why can't we discount the old? Your average non-fundy christian has tossed out giant chunks of the bible, has little to no knowledge of most of the crap we discuss in the threads here, and more or less goes about their day not thinking too much about it, yes?
There is even a growing bit called "cultural christianity" of people who are generally agnostic, but do what secular jews do for christianity.
Your bit about Nietzche is all the more reason to admit that christianities time is over, to move on, get better, and try to get a more enlightened view worked out.
That said, I do hope I don't bring the hackles out in anyone here:D
Also, TBS, why the dawkins hate?
IknowyouarebutwhatamI. Perhaps your anecdotal evidence is, in turn, clouding your judgment.
It's your argument. Investigate it yourself, so that you aren't reduced to leaping from "54% literal" to "54% anti-woman".
Your bias proved exactly my point: humans are equally comprised of reason and emotion.
In reason, presuming that all religion is inherently evil is a presumptuous argument beleaguered by emotion with corrupted reason.
The culture of a people is directly linked to its philosophical beliefs and way of life. Granted, there are beliefs that degenerate into jihad and so forth. However, religion encompasses sustainable agricultural traditions, ways of life, and other such patterns of human life that have allowed mankind to live for centuries in tune with their environment.
http://www.fowler.ucla.edu/incEngine/?content=cm&cm=past_news&article_id=1052158432&art=&did=4
Is religion in this context so bad, when it can help sustain a people for centuries on end?
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.
Lets look at it like this, lets get transitive.
If A = B and B = C then A = C
So if A Believes in B and B Contains C then A believes C
Since literalists believe the bible unconditionally, and the bible contains several bits of nastiness, including the anti-women passages, then literalists naturally believe the anti-women bits.
Under part of sola scriptura there's a cheap shot mechanic that bipasses that. Basically, an unclear portion of the scripture must be interpretted by more clear passages.
So if A is unclear, read B, if B is unclear read C. So since C is said by "God," then it must be the "truer text."
Then there's screwing with canonization and rejecting certain canon for others, or adding in apocrypha. Some reject Paul altogether as corrupting the original message of Christ for example.
Scripture can worm itself and adapt in a plethora of ways as it had in the past.
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.
However,
That scriptures needs to worm itself out of unpleasantries is definately a mark against it as a whole. That you need to do all this work figuring it out, is all the more reason to not introduce it to children who aren't anywhere near able to do this until they are older.
Edit: I have no idea what sola scripture is. However, its not the unclear parts of the bible I'm worried about, the parts that bother me are the passages I understand completely (thank you Mr. Clemens)
Well, the "canon" is just another device created by the institution of the Church to sustain itself. Without codifying a specific list of "approved texts," it would be facing a very destabilizing set of writings cropping up all the time. In fact, Christian teachings were becoming "diluted" by local traditions. And because the Church locked in that list in 300 A.D. or so, Christians today have to deal with a package that reflects what was socially acceptable at that time.
"Sola scriptura" is the idea that the Bible is the one and only Truth. Naturally this interpretation can lead to some serious cognitive dissonance ("If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out," etc.) so the fundamentalists kinda ignore the vagaries and look to other passages to explain the previous ones. Fallacious? Probably, since a lot of the books in the Bible are wholly unrelated.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Anyway,
BACK ON TOPIC!
Yeah, there were a number of concils by early church fathers, the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365 was the first to make a list, this list changed at future councils. The books on the approved lists of cannon was a matter of vote of church leaders attending these functions.
Can you imagine that?
I'm drawing my info from http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html
Many a bible accepted by one group has had a good number of books not in there. Notably Martin Luther, founder of the protestant movement, didn't believe in 6 books you will probably find in your bible. (I wish I could leave this office to OMG!!!! hahaha MR T is on an informercial and is hitting things with frozen meat. He is shilling the "Flavor Wave Turbo Oven" hahahhaha)
Erm... anyway, sorry.
That part about "if your eye causes you to sin" is silly anyway, and just goes to show the primitive nature of these writings. Your body parts don't cause the sin, they are all controlled by the brain.