[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Taking for granted though that God does indeed exist according to the abrahamitic religions, the rejection of God would mean hellfire for mankind in the afterlife, including the devil, and therefore anyone working for the rejection of God must be either the devil itself or one of his servants.

Taking for granted that God does indeed exist and hates the Abrahamic religions, the acceptance of Abrahamic religions would mean hellfire for mankind in the afterlife, and therefore anyone working for the acceptance of Abrahamic religion must be either the devil itself or one of its servants.

Fascinating conclusions we can come up with when we take things for granted, no? Unfortunately, I have to admit that I'm being illogical here. It's entirely possible to inadvertently help a person in his goals without either being him or one of his servants (so few servants in the world these days, really).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Because it is that way per definition, religion means giving a meaning and significance to life without having a waterproof, eh, proof. If children should be only taught what is proveable, then there remains no place for meaning or significance, all you can be sure of is that there is no certainty, only the notion: "I don't know".

I'm not trying to be flippant but what do you mean when you say religion gives "a meaning and significance to life". What do you mean by your use of the word "meaning"?

As for your comments about teaching children what is proveable? What does that have to do with this discussion? Now you seem to be equating meaning with notions of logical truthfulness or scientific verifiability.* Are you equating teaching children to believe in a god/deity as teaching them to think beyond notions of logical truthfulness? That by doing so they can transcend the limits of "proveable" (empirical) logic?

What kind/type of "meaning" can a religion provide that cannot be provided in the absence of a religion? Are you talking about "purpose" when you say meaning in that religion gives people a purpose for living? What if a person does not believe in the Jude-ChrIslamic God or any other deity, are you arguing that their life has no meaning as a result of their lack of belief?



*Here is a thought experiment for you. How can you "prove" the existence of the other planets? If you take empirical evidence as your guide then you could say that you can see them through a telescope. Hence, because you saw it with your own eyes you can say "it is true". But, how do you know your eyes weren't deceived in some way by the properties of physics or the limitations of human biology? If you want to go down this route of strict empiricism I would argue that the only way to "prove" the existence of the other planets would be to go there yourself and touch them--Assuming you agree with the general sentiment that touch is the most significant of all the senses. You see where I am going with this, don't you? If proving something empirically is the basis for verifying truthfulness of observable phenomena then there is much about the world we don't know because we can't "prove" that what we see is in fact real. So, we would not be able to teach children about the planets--among many other subjects--because we cannot "prove" (through strong empirical evidence) that they exist.

[Chuckit]

I thought it was itistoday who was urging a strong emphasis on empirical proof.

[Dakarʒ]

Taliesin, I don't mean to pile-on here, and I understand if you're getting a few too many responses, but I do have one question:

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

If children should be only taught what is proveable, then there remains no place for meaning or significance, all you can be sure of is that there is no certainty, only the notion: "I don't know".

What is wrong with that?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Taking for granted that God does indeed exist and hates the Abrahamic religions, the acceptance of Abrahamic religions would mean hellfire for mankind in the afterlife, and therefore anyone working for the acceptance of Abrahamic religion must be either the devil itself or one of its servants.

That may well be, but you have no religion nor religious scripture that supports such a view.

Of course it's possible that God hates religions and scriptures as well as revelations... and will therefore punish anyone following them without telling us, that He would do so, but then it would be an injust god.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Fascinating conclusions we can come up with when we take things for granted, no? Unfortunately, I have to admit that I'm being illogical here. It's entirely possible to inadvertently help a person in his goals without either being him or one of his servants (so few servants in the world these days, really).

Possible, but serving someone's goals without knowing it, is not much different.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I'm not trying to be flippant but what do you mean when you say religion gives "a meaning and significance to life". What do you mean by your use of the word "meaning"?

Meaning is not exclusively a religious topic, it is also invested in any ideologies or world-views. What I mean, is that restricting the teachment of children to fully proveable things and nothing else, as itistoday and redrocket seem to favour, would be destructive to society.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for your comments about teaching children what is proveable? What does that have to do with this discussion? Now you seem to be equating meaning with notions of logical truthfulness or scientific verifiability.* Are you equating teaching children to believe in a god/deity as teaching them to think beyond notions of logical truthfulness? That by doing so they can transcend the limits of "proveable" (empirical) logic?

You are on a complete wrong train here. All education be it in media, school, at home, or in chruches, synagogues, mosques, temples, whatever propagate concepts and worldviews that are not 100% proveable, and yet these concepts and worldviews are the glue that keep societies intact.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What kind/type of "meaning" can a religion provide that cannot be provided in the absence of a religion? Are you talking about "purpose" when you say meaning in that religion gives people a purpose for living? What if a person does not believe in the Jude-ChrIslamic God or any other deity, are you arguing that their life has no meaning as a result of their lack of belief?

No, what I'm saying is that anyone who leads a successful life has found or created a meaning in his life without having 100%-proof.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

*Here is a thought experiment for you. How can you "prove" the existence of the other planets? If you take empirical evidence as your guide then you could say that you can see them through a telescope. Hence, because you saw it with your own eyes you can say "it is true". But, how do you know your eyes weren't deceived in some way by the properties of physics or the limitations of human biology? If you want to go down this route of strict empiricism I would argue that the only way to "prove" the existence of the other planets would be to go there yourself and touch them--Assuming you agree with the general sentiment that touch is the most significant of all the senses. You see where I am going with this, don't you? If proving something empirically is the basis for verifying truthfulness of observable phenomena then there is much about the world we don't know because we can't "prove" that what we see is in fact real. So, we would not be able to teach children about the planets--among many other subjects--because we cannot "prove" (through strong empirical evidence) that they exist.

You have just discredited all scientific endeavours. But that's my point, without giving meaning to something, eventhough there is no 100%-proof for it, nothing would work at all, not societies and also not sciences.

Taliesin

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That may well be, but you have no religion nor religious scripture that supports such a view.

Hang on, I'll go write some right now. Then I will have some, with just as much validity as the other scriptures written by other people.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Of course it's possible that God hates religions and scriptures as well as revelations... and will therefore punish anyone following them without telling us, that He would do so, but then it would be an injust god.

I agree, that would be really unfair. But it's no worse than punishing people for all eternity for any other mistaken belief. Just because an idea is written in some book somewhere doesn't mean you can reasonably be expected to believe it.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Possible, but serving someone's goals without knowing it, is not much different.

It's a huge difference. For instance, everybody who bought stock in Enron was helping Ken Lay achieve his goals, but they weren't complicit in his fraud — they wound up being victims themselves.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Taliesin, I don't mean to pile-on here, and I understand if you're getting a few too many responses, but I do have one question:
What is wrong with that?

Everything, it would lead to psychological encripplement in children and society. Meaning and faith in something, it doesn't have to be religious, is the main-foundation without which nothing would/could be done.

Every group of people that works and lives regularly together creates or finds such a meaning or faith in order to be productive, even scientists do so, and that meaning and faith is never 100% proveable.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Lots of species live socially and yet they don't need a meaning to do so. I doubt ants need a meaning. So why would humans be the sole exception here?

But really, how do you know that ants don't have a meaning in their life?

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Anyway, I claim that fundamentally religious people are the true nihilists. They put the meaning of life into the afterlife. Life itself has no meaning for them; the meaning only comes with death. If that isn't nihilistic, then I don't know what would be.

Well, that depends on the point of view: if you take for granted, that there is no afterlife, then fundamentalistic religious people are nihilists, but if you take for granted that there is indeed an afterlife which is so much better and eternal, then these fundamentalists are the opposite of nihilists, they seek for the ultimate life.

Regardless which point of view you prefer, religious people certainly don't view this life as meaningless, quite to the contrary, they view it as the stage where they can prepare for the afterlife, by doing good and believing in God.

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Atheists on the other hand have to find a meaning into life itself, which is a positive and affirmative attitude towards life.

Yes, but if you read carefully my posts, I'm not talking about normal atheists, that find or create their own meaning of life, which is per se not proveable.


Taliesin

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Lots of species live socially and yet they don't need a meaning to do so. I doubt ants need a meaning. So why would humans be the sole exception here?

Ants don't marry or go out for drunks at the pub, either. It seems to me that humans generally do feel a need to find meaning in things.

[BRussell]

Well, an ant ain't got the cortex of a human. Ants are incapable of finding meaning in things, unlike humans.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That may well be, but you have no religion nor religious scripture that supports such a view.

Well, the Buddha says that without enlightenment, a man is condemned to endless rebirth in our suffering world. Which is pretty close, really (without the sadistic concept of eternal torment in hell, of course).

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Everything, it would lead to psychological encripplement in children and society. Meaning and faith in something, it doesn't have to be religious, is the main-foundation without which nothing would/could be done.

Every group of people that works and lives regularly together creates or finds such a meaning or faith in order to be productive, even scientists do so, and that meaning and faith is never 100% proveable.

Taliesin

I bolded that part for a reason. I imagine you used the 'even' because scientists have a greater likelihood of being agnostic or atheist. But I think that proves my point -- scientists are taught to prove their beliefs and there is no certainty, yet they find meaning for their lives.

Additionally, I believe that in a religious vacuum, philosophy would be turned to. And I don't think an increased participation in philosophy would doom this earth.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I bolded that part for a reason. I imagine you used the 'even' because scientists have a greater likelihood of being agnostic or atheist. But I think that proves my point -- scientists are taught to prove their beliefs and there is no certainty, yet they find meaning for their lives.

Additionally, I believe that in a religious vacuum, philosophy would be turned to. And I don't think an increased participation in philosophy would doom this earth.

Eh, itistoday's reasoning seems to apply to anything that isn't empirically verifiable. He's free to correct me if I've misunderstood, but his gist seems to be that parents shouldn't tell their children anything they can't prove beyond a doubt. This would count out most philosophy as well.

[Dakarʒ]

So we're banning religion and philosophy then? Damn.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I was raised in a quite Christian home and environment, and so were most of my friends. Now you come to place a like this, and guess who's spitting all the venom?

If you're implying me, then I assure you, you are mistaken. No venom is being spit here, sorry if you see it that way.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Eh, itistoday's reasoning seems to apply to anything that isn't empirically verifiable. He's free to correct me if I've misunderstood, but his gist seems to be that parents shouldn't tell their children anything they can't prove beyond a doubt. This would count out most philosophy as well.

Then I'll clarify.

I emphasized that my main problem is with parents who teach their children religious ideas that encroach on other people's beliefs or freedoms. An apt example that I gave was that of gay marriage. Imagine if the Jews suddenly took control of the government and passed legislation outlawing the sale and purchase of pork because the Bible says it's an abomination, wouldn't it be amusing to watch those same evangelical Christians complain of religious persecution.

Slightly less important to me is the very idea that you would tell your child that God exists (as a fact). This is likely what most Christian parents do, I speak only from anecdotal evidence though. Some have made that point that "this is harmless," but of course they are mistaken in saying so. While the damage from teaching your child to hate and discriminate is painfully obvious because it targets a specific group, the damage caused by a fervent belief in an almighty despot in heaven who judges you based on your ability to follow the ambiguous words of an ancient text that are interpreted through the mouths of boy-loving priests certainly becomes apparent if you just have the will to see it. But I digress... such a position is not easy to explain to someone already deeply rooted in that world, and for better or worse I don't have the time at the moment.

As far as the teaching of philosophy goes, I think the very nature of subject limits it from being presented as cosmic dogma. Sometimes it is presented as fact, and that too I think is wrong. Again, you can teach your kids whatever you want, but don't force them to believe it, don't present speculation or theory as fact. Even evolution, with the mountain of evidence supporting it and barely a valid criticism in sight, should still be explained exactly as it is, no more, no less. If you want to tell your kid that gravity is "just a theory", you can very well go ahead and do that, but don't mislead them into thinking that means it's reasonable for any old cook to question it. Explain to them exactly what a theory is, how it differs from a scientific law, how scientific laws might not give you the whole truth either, what you can take from it, etc.

All of this really applies not just to your kids, but in your conversations with anyone. There is a truly phenomenal amount of bullshit in every single conversation, the majority of it is someone "talking out of their ass." Everyone does it, I sometimes catch myself unwittingly doing it, in fact for some reason it's very hard for humans not to bullshit. But that doesn't mean that we should tolerate it, or remain ambivalent in our attitude towards it if we want society to progress as a whole. This is another reason why it's so important to teach your child how to think critically and objectively from a young age, because the older they become, the more difficult it is to stop bullshitting.

Unfortunately I must be return to my work, toodles.

[RAILhead]

How does teaching your kid there is no God not encroach on those people who believe there is? When it comes up, your kids will tell my kids that there is no God, etc., so your kids are doing exactly what you said my kids were doing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

How does teaching your kid there is no God not encroach on those people who believe there is?

I never once said to teach them there is no God. I made it perfectly clear above that speculation should not be presented as fact.

OK, now I've really got to go, I shall forcibly disconnect myself from the internet, I'll respond later hopefully, but unfortunately I gotta run.

[olePigeon]

I thought this was going to be about the Los Angeles Archdiocese paying $660 million to the parents.

[shinji]

You can teach your kids about your own beliefs and present them like that, as beliefs, and not the immutable divine word that you know as 100% fact. In the same way that not all Muslims are terrorists, not all people who believe in God are diehard fundamentalist abortionist-killers (great band name).

My parents weren't religious at all really, and I would say the majority of people I know aren't...they sort of have a vague, general belief system but don't practice any kind of organized religion. But most of my friends did have some sort of religious education, so they were taught to believe in God, and I don't believe it affects their political affiliation as almost all of them are extremely liberal. So it is possible to teach your kids about spirituality without turning them into a bible-thumping prick.

That's the point really- you can share your beliefs with your kids and do it in a more sane way than what happened in Jesus Camp, for example, and it doesn't hurt anyone.

[ThinkInsane]

So parents that teach their children religion should be punished and have their children taken away for encroaching on the rights of others. In order to do so, you need to violate that individual's constitutionally guaranteed rights. You want to violate an individuals first amendment rights, so they can't say "we think what that person is doing is sinful"? You want to take away their children and claim abuse because they disagree with you? Do you really not see the hypocrisy in what you are saying? So you are anti-freedom of speech as well as anti-freedom of (and from) religion, correct? Just want to make sure I've got it right.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Just want to make sure I've got it right.

You really outta be proud of yourself ThinkInsane (and what an appropriate name), it's been a while since I've seen someone fail so spectacularly.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I emphasized that my main problem is with parents who teach their children religious ideas that encroach on other people's beliefs or freedoms. An apt example that I gave was that of gay marriage. Imagine if the Jews suddenly took control of the government and passed legislation outlawing the sale and purchase of pork because the Bible says it's an abomination, wouldn't it be amusing to watch those same evangelical Christians complain of religious persecution.

I agree that imposing your religious mores on others is bad, but outlawing free thought and restricting speech isn't something I approve of either. People have to be allowed to hold their own opinions. This kind of thought-policing could just as well be used to bar parents from telling their kids that homosexuality is OK.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Slightly less important to me is the very idea that you would tell your child that God exists (as a fact). This is likely what most Christian parents do, I speak only from anecdotal evidence though.

Well, they accept it as fact. It makes sense for them to present it as such. Just because you don't see it the same way doesn't necessarily mean they should roll over and conform to your worldview. If you feel thoroughly convinced of something, do you usually couch it in hypotheticals and maybes?

Originally Posted by itistoday 

While the damage from teaching your child to hate and discriminate is painfully obvious because it targets a specific group, the damage caused by a fervent belief in an almighty despot in heaven who judges you based on your ability to follow the ambiguous words of an ancient text that are interpreted through the mouths of boy-loving priests certainly becomes apparent if you just have the will to see it.

Is that how you see religion?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Well, the Buddha says that without enlightenment, a man is condemned to endless rebirth in our suffering world. Which is pretty close, really (without the sadistic concept of eternal torment in hell, of course).

Depends on what is meant by enlightement within the buddhistic view.

Probably you know much more about buddhism than me, so maybe you can answer a question : Do buddhists believe that all humans have reincarnated souls?

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Huh? It's perfectly fine to tell them it's a theory and present them the evidence. Just as it's OK to tell them gravity is " just a theory." "Just a theory" = you don't understand what a theory is.

Maybe someone ought to tell him that God is a theory too. And then present him with the evidence…







…oh.

[Rumor]

Taliesin,

I just wanted to thank you. You have opened my eyes. Since I do not believe in God, I therefore realize I have no meaning in life. So I now go to jump off a bridge into the Pacific Ocean since there is no point in me being here.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Hang on, I'll go write some right now. Then I will have some, with just as much validity as the other scriptures written by other people.

Try it, I doubt though that you will succeed in it.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree, that would be really unfair. But it's no worse than punishing people for all eternity for any other mistaken belief. Just because an idea is written in some book somewhere doesn't mean you can reasonably be expected to believe it.

It depends on how you view the world. Do you see the world only empirically, then you see only the visible world, the material/physical world, but that's not how religions and religious people view the world. They also feel an invisible/spiritual world, where God's and the angel's spirits are active, but also where the devil and his servants among the demons (called jinns in the Quran) are deceiving, seducing...
Those that follow the devil's suggestions and never in their life repent and change for the better and die in their sin will be forever punished in hell.

Those that follow though God's spiritual guidance, repent their sins and seek spiritual refuge in God, will find God forgiving, which is salvation, and which means a life in paradise/heaven in the eternal afterlife.

But what about those people that fall in neither of these categories, those that did not give in to the devil's suggestions, or if so at times, at least changed for the better, but also did not directly seek spiritual refuge in God. Quite a lot of people would be part of this category these days.

The jewish religion claims that these latter people have also the opportunity to gain eternal life in heaven/paradise, as long as they are righteous and don't break the seven laws of Noah.

The Quran claims that such souls will not be dealt unjustly with, that they will be judged upon their deeds, measured with a balance, on which every good deed has twice as much weight as a bad deed, and the fate in afterlife depends then which side is weighing more.

I'm not sure, but I think the christian religion has also a similar copout for the righteous but nonreligious people.

I think that group of people would be nominal jews/christians/muslims within their religious communities, and in a secular society they would be agnostic.

And yet, in all three religions there is enough stuff to justify a more hardline view, namely that only the truly devoted will receive salvation, while all the others won't.

The question though remains, if it is just to punish even the most evil person, or the devil and his servants, for all eternity in hellfire.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's a huge difference. For instance, everybody who bought stock in Enron was helping Ken Lay achieve his goals, but they weren't complicit in his fraud — they wound up being victims themselves.

The crime here is to propagate God's rejection, just like it's fraud in your example. I don't think that stockbuyers supported ideologically the fraud, but hardcore atheists actively support ideologically God's rejection.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Taliesin,

I just wanted to thank you. You have opened my eyes. Since I do not believe in God, I therefore realize I have no meaning in life. So I now go to jump off a bridge into the Pacific Ocean since there is no point in me being here.

Strange enough, where did I imply that there can be no meaning in life without a belief in God?

I made clear that most people have, find and create a meaning in their life, eventhough they are not religious.

What I'm suggesting is that any meaning in life, religious or nonreligious, is unproveable, but yet very necessary for societies in order not to selfimplode.

Taliesin

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Well, that depends on the point of view: if you take for granted, that there is no afterlife, then fundamentalistic religious people are nihilists, but if you take for granted that there is indeed an afterlife which is so much better and eternal, then these fundamentalists are the opposite of nihilists, they seek for the ultimate life.

There have been religious fundamentalists who have blown themselves up to murder others. Desiring not to live and not wanting others to live is the ultimate nihilism.

Yes, but if you read carefully my posts, I'm not talking about normal atheists, that find or create their own meaning of life, which is per se not proveable.

So, you're only talking about nihilist atheists. Yes, those are nihilists. But that doesn't mean that all of them are. There are nihilist atheists and there are nihilist religious people. Religion doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

There have been religious fundamentalists who have blown themselves up to murder others. Desiring not to live and not wanting others to live is the ultimate nihilism.

So, you're only talking about nihilist atheists. Yes, those are nihilists. But that doesn't mean that all of them are. There are nihilist atheists and there are nihilist religious people.
Religion doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

Well, here you are completely wrong. It's not the actions that define nihilism, but the thinking or intention behind it. Islamic fundamentalists that blow themselves up killing themselves and murdering others do so with the specific intention of gaining eternal life in paradise, and also for defending the country or the faith against real or perceived attackers, either through attacking enemy-armies or targetting civilians in order to take revenge or in order to convince the population to change its policy,,,

All that speaks against nihilism. Nihilists see no truth in anything, nothing has any worth, and for them no action is preferable to another. Nihilists would never organize and fight for something, except perhaps for pure entertainment, and they surely would never believe in a higher being.

So, while there may be depressive religious people, I think it's impossible to find a nihilistic religious person.

Taliesin

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

...the damage caused by a fervent belief in an almighty despot in heaven who judges you based on your ability to follow the ambiguous words of an ancient text that are interpreted through the mouths of boy-loving priests certainly becomes apparent if you just have the will to see it.

No venom, eh? So, once again, the Christ hating bigots are trolling again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Then I'll clarify.

I emphasized that my main problem is with parents who teach their children religious ideas that encroach on other people's beliefs or freedoms. An apt example that I gave was that of gay marriage. Imagine if the Jews suddenly took control of the government and passed legislation outlawing the sale and purchase of pork because the Bible says it's an abomination, wouldn't it be amusing to watch those same evangelical Christians complain of religious persecution.

This is where I believe you're mistaken out of the gate. Distaste for gay marriage transcends religious, cultural, philosophical, and geographical lines. As a regularly practicing Christian, I support civil unions for all and let the Churches marry whom they deem fit. I tell my children that it is not gays who've defined marriage down, it is the rest of us who've defined marriage as a life-long commitment you make at least twice in life with a prenup to protect assets. Your notion that distaste for gay marriage is somehow a "religious" phenomena is mistaken. With regard to Christianity; the Bible does not instruct that Christians go about telling one another why they're wrong. Christian doctrine teaches that one should conduct one's life in such a manner that others would be curious about it and be drawn in. Jesus did not say "on this rock I build my Catholicism, my Islam, my Lutheranism, etc..."

Slightly less important to me is the very idea that you would tell your child that God exists (as a fact). This is likely what most Christian parents do, I speak only from anecdotal evidence though. Some have made that point that "this is harmless," but of course they are mistaken in saying so.

Here you say "of course they're mistaken in saying so" as if you have the lock on absolute truth. By what measurement is teaching your child about God "obviously mistaken"? It is not only harmless, but has been extremely productive in the lives of those with whom I often associate.

While the damage from teaching your child to hate and discriminate is painfully obvious because it targets a specific group, the damage caused by a fervent belief in an almighty despot in heaven who judges you based on your ability to follow the ambiguous words of an ancient text that are interpreted through the mouths of boy-loving priests certainly becomes apparent if you just have the will to see it.

Here you're stating that belief in a deity is causal of hate and discrimination in targeting specific groups. While religion has been used for the above, there are certainly any host of ideals (when abused) that lead to racism up to and including science itself. This is the product of human nature, not religion or the teaching of a god. You lodge these indictments with an apparent lack of knowledge about the Bible's History and about the most basic of Christian principles such as "judgment". I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists (I guess I'm hoping you also don't) nor do I think the teachings of religion are by their own nature "destructive". You make statements like; "the mouths of boy-loving priests" and then conclude that these things are apparent if you just have the will to see it. What I see is ignorance leading to phobia. I see someone calling for others to view the "bigger picture" while falling woefully short of his own principles of tolerance and acceptance.

But I digress... such a position is not easy to explain to someone already deeply rooted in that world, and for better or worse I don't have the time at the moment.

You should make time itistoday. IMO, your reasoning has not been well-thought and your delivery even less so. Your notions of Christian doctrine, principles, and teachings are nothing more than the collateral damage of ignorance founded from a chip on your shoulder. The ad hom nature of your post is not indicative of enlightenment, tolerance, and knowledge.

As far as the teaching of philosophy goes, I think the very nature of subject limits it from being presented as cosmic dogma. Sometimes it is presented as fact, and that too I think is wrong. Again, you can teach your kids whatever you want, but don't force them to believe it, don't present speculation or theory as fact. Even evolution, with the mountain of evidence supporting it and barely a valid criticism in sight, should still be explained exactly as it is, no more, no less. If you want to tell your kid that gravity is "just a theory", you can very well go ahead and do that, but don't mislead them into thinking that means it's reasonable for any old cook to question it. Explain to them exactly what a theory is, how it differs from a scientific law, how scientific laws might not give you the whole truth either, what you can take from it, etc.

I teach my children (particularly with regards to any academic endeavor) that they will come across philosophies, doctrines, ideals, and people that they disagree with for any one of a number of reasons. Their goal is to learn as much about the subject matter as possible. I do not teach them that evolution is wrong and I do not teach them that Christianity dictates opposition to science. I teach them that regardless of what they "feel", they will never be able to contribute at the table of ideals without knowledge. It is also reasonable however for any kook to question any aspect of knowledge for it is those too often deemed "kooks" that have arguably contributed the most to it. The questioning will only strengthen the principle standing up to it.

All of this really applies not just to your kids, but in your conversations with anyone. There is a truly phenomenal amount of bullshit in every single conversation, the majority of it is someone "talking out of their ass." Everyone does it, I sometimes catch myself unwittingly doing it, in fact for some reason it's very hard for humans not to bullshit. But that doesn't mean that we should tolerate it, or remain ambivalent in our attitude towards it if we want society to progress as a whole. This is another reason why it's so important to teach your child how to think critically and objectively from a young age, because the older they become, the more difficult it is to stop bullshitting.

Exactly. Before you know it they'll be making sweeping generalizations of those who don't think like them and chest-pounding tolerance by calling the scholars of Biblical history "boy-loving priests" and calling for an end to discrimination, racism, and hatred by silencing the evil religionists.

*Hint, I'm calling bullshit.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

No venom, eh? So, once again, the Christ hating bigots are trolling again.

This may well be the product of ignorance coming off as hate as it often does, and not hate itself. I'm hoping open-mindedness will prevail. We may learn something this week.

[besson3c]

I tried praying for me to be open-minded about Jesus once, but that didn't work. He told me that my request was denied.

[wolfen]

Beating up on religion is the "in" thing these days. Sheeple come in all forms, apparently.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree that imposing your religious mores on others is bad, but outlawing free thought and restricting speech isn't something I approve of either. People have to be allowed to hold their own opinions. This kind of thought-policing could just as well be used to bar parents from telling their kids that homosexuality is OK.

I'm very curious, apparently it's not just ThinkInsane, where did you see me say that we should outlaw free thought and restrict speech? Has someone been writing things in my name that I wholeheartedly disagree with?

Well, they accept it as fact. It makes sense for them to present it as such. Just because you don't see it the same way doesn't necessarily mean they should roll over and conform to your worldview.

It's not about conforming to any world view. It's about examining your own beliefs that you hold as "fact" and seeing the bullshit in you.

If you feel thoroughly convinced of something, do you usually couch it in hypotheticals and maybes?

No I don't, but I take pains to make sure that when I say something without such qualifications, I'm sure of its truth. Otherwise, I do indeed try to couch many of my statements with various kinds of qualifying words, especially when I'm not sure of its truth. I try to use logic to evaluate my statements as much as possible. If someone points out a flaw in my logic then I will do my best to fix the situation and adjust my thinking.

Is that how you see religion?

No. That is how I see it being taught.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

No venom, eh? So, once again, the Christ hating bigots are trolling again.

You are trolling right now. I'm not a "Christ hating bigot", nor have I said anything to indicate that.

[Doofy]

Quick, quick... ...the fascists are forcing their children to hear about God! We must force them to stop!

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

You really outta be proud of yourself ThinkInsane (and what an appropriate name), it's been a while since I've seen someone fail so spectacularly.

You want to take a way a fundamental right that this country was founded upon, and yet I'm the one that failed. Whatever.

I come from a place where it was considered okay to hang a help wanted sign in a shop window with the caveat "catholics need not apply", so please forgive me if I'm not in favor of limiting people's beliefs in such matters.

And before I have to listen to the usual drivel, I will tell you now that although if asked I will identify myself as Roman Catholic, I am an atheist. To me being Catholic is a matter of heritage and culture, not a matter of faith. If I had children, they would be raised as catholics. If they choose to believe or not is their business, but I am a Catholic from the North of Ireland, that's the way I would raise my own children, and that none of your goddamn business.

And as for the rest of your nonsense, what scientific proof do you have that homosexuality is scientifically acceptable? Not knocking the gays, frankly I couldn't care less who marries whom, and honestly can't figure out why straight people want to get married let alone homosexuals (but that's neither here nor there). But it seems to me that homosexuality defies the evolutionary imperative to pass on your genes to the next generation. It seems you have no more fact to support your argument than the christians do, so when you teach your children that being gay is fine and dandy, should you also be accused of child abuse for claiming something that has never been proven as fact? Here's an idea you might want to try: "Live and let live".

But hey, I failed so spectacularly, what do I know?

[besson3c]

I don't understand why we look to evolution to dictate where we stand on homosexuality.

Just as wisdom teeth are vestiges of the past, it can be argued that our sexual urges are no longer based on the need to reproduce, as in most areas of the world there is not a shortage of population.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand why we look to evolution to dictate where we stand on homosexuality.

Just as wisdom teeth are vestiges of the past, it can be argued that our sexual urges are no longer based on the need to reproduce, as in most areas of the world there is not a shortage of population.

I don't. It was a bad example that I thought on par with the OP's equally bad ideas. I was playing devil's advocate, if you will. The turkey baster has bested evolution as far as passing on genes goes, when it comes right down to it.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

You want to take a way a fundamental right that this country was founded upon, and yet I'm the one that failed. Whatever.

I did not want to spell it out for you, I thought you'd be able to figure it out for yourself, but I see you're not going to let me have it any other way. Did you see what I was quoting? Hint:

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Just want to make sure I've got it right.

You failed = you did not get it right. Not a single part of it. And you continue to fail. I dunno why this is, it might be because you're just not following the thread, to be honest I just think it's severe negligence on your part to read the posts and comprehend them. I posted the following almost 2 hours before your reply:

Originally Posted by itistoday

I'm very curious, apparently it's not just ThinkInsane, where did you see me say that we should outlaw free thought and restrict speech? Has someone been writing things in my name that I wholeheartedly disagree with?

You, a moderator, failed to follow the maxim at the door of the war lounge: "Please check straw men at the door." I feel obliged to reply civilly to someone who takes the time to carefully read and understand what I wrote. I thought that in this thread I made several detailed posts clearly explaining my position, then I read your reply and you accuse me of trying to take away people's first amendment rights. Worse still, no doubt you've seen my posts throughout my time here on MacNN and know that I am a fierce supporter of the freedom of expression, I have started numerous threads on the topic and have even fought administrators over it when I considered their censorship unwarranted. Nowhere in this thread have I ever said that I wanted anyone's rights taken away. The entire theme of this thread is the protection of people's rights. So when I read your reply, that was all I could muster up the effort to say: You. Failed.

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

And before I have to listen to the usual drivel, I will tell you now that although if asked I will identify myself as Roman Catholic, I am an atheist. To me being Catholic is a matter of heritage and culture, not a matter of faith. If I had children, they would be raised as catholics. If they choose to believe or not is their business, but I am a Catholic from the North of Ireland, that's the way I would raise my own children, and that none of your goddamn business.

I never said anything in disagreement with any of this (as long as you're not turning your children into right-taking-away-evil-machines). I'm glad we're in total agreement. One of us knows this, the other is too blind to see it and seems reluctant to make the simple effort to try (all you gotta do is read my posts). Why? Because he's blinded by a straw-man.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is where I believe you're mistaken out of the gate. Distaste for gay marriage transcends religious, cultural, philosophical, and geographical lines. As a regularly practicing Christian, I support civil unions for all and let the Churches marry whom they deem fit. I tell my children that it is not gays who've defined marriage down, it is the rest of us who've defined marriage as a life-long commitment you make at least twice in life with a prenup to protect assets. Your notion that distaste for gay marriage is somehow a "religious" phenomena is mistaken. With regard to Christianity; the Bible does not instruct that Christians go about telling one another why they're wrong. Christian doctrine teaches that one should conduct one's life in such a manner that others would be curious about it and be drawn in. Jesus did not say "on this rock I build my Catholicism, my Islam, my Lutheranism, etc..."

You've completely missed the message, and have replaced it with a completely different one, presumably so that you'll have an easier time butchering it. I see many replies (yours, Chuckit's, ThinkInsane's), that consist solely of the massacring of straw-men (each slightly different from the other's), and I take offense to this. Read what I said again, I hate repeating myself, and I don't think I could have done a better job explaining my position. I'm sorry, but they don't pay me enough to go through each and every lengthy post pointing out how that individual failed to comprehend what they read. Hint: stop interpreting what I'm saying as an attack on free speech or an attack on the religion itself.

Here you say "of course they're mistaken in saying so" as if you have the lock on absolute truth. By what measurement is teaching your child about God "obviously mistaken"?

Again we continue this exercise in reading comprehension. The "obviously mistaken" bit referred to the damage done by forcing your child to accept God's existence as fact. It's not "teaching your child about God", it's "teaching your child that God most definitely exists, the Bible is the truth, and all other views are wrong."

Here you're stating that belief in a deity is causal of hate and discrimination in targeting specific groups.

Amazing, that's another F, go back and read it again, and again until you realize how badly you misunderstood that.

While religion has been used for the above, there are certainly any host of ideals (when abused) that lead to racism up to and including science itself. This is the product of human nature, not religion or the teaching of a god.

Nowhere in my posts have I said anything to disagree with this. If I was your english teacher I would have forced you to stay back a grade.

What I see is ignorance leading to phobia. I see someone calling for others to view the "bigger picture" while falling woefully short of his own principles of tolerance and acceptance.

Yes, this is exactly what you see, and this is exactly the problem, because none of this is what is actually there. Read it several times before you reply to me, and if you still do not see anything different, then don't bother replying at all, my patience has run out. I am not attacking your religion.

You should make time itistoday.

Sorry, I have no desire to engage in the process of holding your hand while you struggle to comprehend what you just read.

I teach my children (particularly with regards to any academic endeavor) that they will come across philosophies, doctrines, ideals, and people that they disagree with for any one of a number of reasons. Their goal is to learn as much about the subject matter as possible. I do not teach them that evolution is wrong and I do not teach them that Christianity dictates opposition to science. I teach them that regardless of what they "feel", they will never be able to contribute at the table of ideals without knowledge.

Good, glad to see your actions fall in line with the advice I gave in this thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

You've completely missed the message, and have replaced it with a completely different one, presumably so that you'll have an easier time butchering it. I see many replies (yours, Chuckit's, ThinkInsane's), that consist solely of the massacring of straw-men (each slightly different from the other's), and I take offense to this.

Good, your delivery sucked. Chuckit, myself, and ThinkInsane are not known for reading comprehension problems. Perhaps you can't express aspects of religion without letting a little phobia hang out. Don't rail on me brother. This is your deal.

Read what I said again, I hate repeating myself, and I don't think I could have done a better job explaining my position. I'm sorry, but they don't pay me enough to go through each and every lengthy post pointing out how that individual failed to comprehend what they read. Hint: stop interpreting what I'm saying as an attack on free speech or an attack on the religion itself.

Originally Posted by itistoday

Parents who teach their children religious ideas that encroach on other people's beliefs or freedoms. An apt example that I gave was that of gay marriage.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting here because you seem to have a real problem standing behind what you're saying; "Parents teach their children religious ideas that encroach on other people's beliefs or freedoms such as gay marriage." I told you that you were wrong out of the gate. Opposition to "gay marriage" or homosexuality in general transcends religious, cultural, philosophical, and geographical lines. A parent may express their own problems with gay marriage and they may or may not invoke God in so-doing. Speaking of having to hold hands here.

Now, as far as me misinterpreting your rants as somehow an attack on free speech;

Originally Posted by itistoday

the very idea that you would tell your child that God exists (as a fact). This is likely what most Christian parents do, I speak only from anecdotal evidence though. Some have made that point that "this is harmless," but of course they are mistaken in saying so.

Are you saying that teaching your child that God exists as fact is dangerous? Is it as dangerous as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? What? If you have a point with this, please by all means make it. Otherwise, it seems you have a distaste for free speech and you're having a hard time standing behind this view.

What about my misinterpretation that your rant was an attack on religion;

Originally Posted by itistoday

While the damage from teaching your child to hate and discriminate is painfully obvious because it targets a specific group, the damage caused by a fervent belief in an almighty despot in heaven who judges you based on your ability to follow the ambiguous words of an ancient text that are interpreted through the mouths of boy-loving priests certainly becomes apparent if you just have the will to see it.

Are you starting to see why I'm saying your delivery really sucks? You claimed you couldn't word it any better than this, do you have terrets syndrome or something? Religion is not causal of discrimination or bigotry. These are traits of human nature. Religious parents don't teach their child that their "might be a God". Do I have to provide a definition of "faith" for you? Again, your notions are woefully mistaken and wreak of the exact type of intolerance you're supposedly championing opposition to.

Again we continue this exercise in reading comprehension. The "obviously mistaken" bit referred to the damage done by forcing your child to accept God's existence as fact.

That's what "faith" is and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that in the least bit. Evidenced by your lack of any substantive data to back the claim.

It's not "teaching your child about God", it's "teaching your child that God most definitely exists, the Bible is the truth, and all other views are wrong."

Not all "religious" parents teach this. I find your focus on Christianity intriguing however. If Christians grow up believing the Bible is truth (and I know a great many who do) they are more inclined to stay out of prison and less inclined to have premarital sex, use drugs, lie, and commit violence against other kids. Fact. I know, these are all super-dangerous ideals to raise your kids by.

Amazing, that's another F, go back and read it again, and again until you realize how badly you misunderstood that.

Perhaps you should go back through with a little more introspect this time and notice how poorly you express your views. I won't grade you. This is patronizing to the nth degree.

Nowhere in my posts have I said anything to disagree with this. If I was your english teacher I would have forced you to stay back a grade.

Again, really? So your point was... "I'm in ur chapel, your science lab, your english class, your restaurant, your place of work, your daycare, your montessori, your earth day parade, abusin' ur children"??? No? Well then, what? Throw me a bone man, a point at all to any of this.

Yes, this is exactly what you see, and this is exactly the problem, because none of this is what is actually there. Read it several times before you reply to me, and if you still do not see anything different, then don't bother replying at all, my patience has run out. I am not attacking your religion.

Nope, I read it through again to verify what in the world you could possibly be talking about and in reading that along with the most incredible display of back-peddling I think I've ever seen here am more confused than ever.

Tell ya what, how about you not post a rant full of ad hom, unsubstantiated bullshit that you're obviously unable to stand behind and save that apparent chip on your shoulder for a therapist?

[itistoday]

I'm perfectly content to leave it at this. Everyone who thinks that I attacked Christianity, free speech, etc. can feel free to think that if it helps them sleep at night. Hopefully not everyone who comes across this thread will interpret it in this way, but to be honest, I think it's time for me to take a break from MacNN (again), I've lost the will to debate the forces of idiocy for now.

Caio, see you in several months.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If Christians grow up believing the Bible is truth (and I know a great many who do) they are more inclined to stay out of prison and less inclined to have premarital sex, … I know, these are all super-dangerous ideals to raise your kids by.

Oh noes! The premarital sex!! It is teh dangerous!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh noes! The premarital sex!! It is teh dangerous!

The point was that raising your kids under tenets that may discourage them from premarital sex is not dangerous. Given the incredible rise in STDs in this country though, I'd have to say yes. Premarital sex can be dangerous.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The point was that raising your kids under tenets that may discourage them from premarital sex is not dangerous. Given the incredible rise in STDs in this country though, I'd have to say yes. Premarital sex can be dangerous.

Only if the sexers are not educated in safe sex.

Sex will happen, discouraging parenting or not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Only if the sexers are not educated in safe sex.

Sex will happen, discouraging parenting or not.

Sex education does discourage unsafe sex, but again the point was that raising your kids under tenets that may discourage them from having premarital sex is not dangerous.