Yes, but they aren't as good, and they aren't as cunningly packaged as religion. If their 'reasons and logic' for being bastards are weaker, they'll be able to persuade less people of their cause and thus things will be better.
You appear to be horribly ignorant about the Enlightenment, the cultural response to the discovery of Evolution, etc.
Err, if religion is not a reason for war and hate, then it is an excuse.
If it wasn't a good excuse people wouldn't use it so much
If people didn't have such a good excuse they wouldn't seem as persuasive and wouldn't be able to get as many other people on board with their bad ideas.
I really cannot recommend Eichmann in Jerusalem highly enough.
Yes, but they aren't as good, and they aren't as cunningly packaged as religion. If their 'reasons and logic' for being bastards are weaker, they'll be able to persuade less people of their cause and thus things will be better.
You appear to be horribly ignorant about the Enlightenment, the cultural response to the discovery of Evolution, etc.
Err, if religion is not a reason for war and hate, then it is an excuse.
If it wasn't a good excuse people wouldn't use it so much
If people didn't have such a good excuse they wouldn't seem as persuasive and wouldn't be able to get as many other people on board with their bad ideas.
Again, horribly ignorant.
You need to read more about history before you can start making bold statements on how you could make it better.
Yes, but religion trains people not to question ideas. If each generation had to question the logic of its parents morality as it pertained to modern society rather than being trained to just accept what the man in the sky said then it would have faded a lot earlier.
Religion is not the true cause of societies ills, however it is a highly useful tool for those who profit from those ills to use to get others to go along with them. Religion doesn't cause hate, but it gives you a justification. It doesn't make you beat your wife, but it tells you why she deserved it. It doesn't make you kill a man for being different, but it tells you why you get to go to heaven now that you have.
The thing you need to understand is that horrible people have secular backup reasons for when their religious reasons won't work.
Yes, but they aren't as good, and they aren't as cunningly packaged as religion. If their 'reasons and logic' for being bastards are weaker, they'll be able to persuade less people of their cause and thus things will be better.
It's entirely subjective whether those reasons are better. For the prosperity of your country for which you'll ultimately be rewarded can work just as well as for the prosperity of God for which you'll ultimately be rewarded.
Yes but one of those arguments is a statement which can be analysed for truth, the other is not. As such, if you only have one argument then a smart person might disagree, however the same smart person having been given a good brainwashing by religion will jump right on board.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
If you had kids, would you make them go to church?
I know this was directed at Pony, but I'd like to take a shot at it:
For a while, yes. Only up to the point where my kids started questioning it, and not because it's a boring thing for a kid to have to do (I was there once, church as a youngster is boring as fuck). The day my kids (should I have them) are able to start questioning things about the Bible or the religion, I'll leave it up to them to decide if they want to go to church, or if they think it isn't necessary to still hold some amount of religious belief (that is, is church necessary to still hold those values true to one's life).
I'd rather my kids have the ability to make choices and have free will than that shit. And honestly, I'd be more concerned about whether or not they're good people. People don't need religion to be as such.
That seems like the reverse way to do it, nabbing the kids and putting them in church when they're youngest, most impressionable and willing to latch on to the ideas of Jesus and the 12 Super Friends. It seems like you'd present it to your kids when they were of the age to think outside the bun and challenge it and then decide if it's something they want.
I agree. And I also why you arbitrarily decided to take them to church, as opposed to Scientology church or a mosque, or a Richard Dawkins Bright convention.
Because I was taken to church when I was a kid and was also taught critical thinking and questioning skills when I was raised, and I want to do what I can to emulate that for my kids. I like to think that in the end, everything that was a factor in how I was brought up made me the person I am today (tolerant of people's lifestyles and choices despite disagreement, intolerant of those who are intolerant themselves).
Henroid on
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
If you had kids, would you make them go to church?
I know this was directed at Pony, but I'd like to take a shot at it:
For a while, yes. Only up to the point where my kids started questioning it, and not because it's a boring thing for a kid to have to do (I was there once, church as a youngster is boring as fuck). The day my kids (should I have them) are able to start questioning things about the Bible or the religion, I'll leave it up to them to decide if they want to go to church, or if they think it isn't necessary to still hold some amount of religious belief (that is, is church necessary to still hold those values true to one's life).
I'd rather my kids have the ability to make choices and have free will than that shit. And honestly, I'd be more concerned about whether or not they're good people. People don't need religion to be as such.
That seems like the reverse way to do it, nabbing the kids and putting them in church when they're youngest, most impressionable and willing to latch on to the ideas of Jesus and the 12 Super Friends. It seems like you'd present it to your kids when they were of the age to think outside the bun and challenge it and then decide if it's something they want.
I agree. And I also why you arbitrarily decided to take them to church, as opposed to Scientology church or a mosque, or a Richard Dawkins Bright convention.
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out. Not exactly feasible, but I mean, if you wanted to ensure tabula rasa by the time they could make that decision for themselves, you'd have to do it like that. I could see the above method of just presenting a bunch of shit when they're little, but that would be confusing in a "so wait, Jesus and Muhammad were friends with the Elephant man who says I'll never die but come back as a fly if I'm bad?"
Pony, you are just as free to not explain your "religious" beliefs as I am free to ignore your unsupported assertion that you are "religious" and continue to define "religion" functionally and without regard to your mysterious beliefs.
Until you actually interact with this by explaining what your beliefs are and why a definition of "religion" should include them, I'm just going to ignore you, and I suggest everyone else do the same.
Religion, specifically, specific religious practices and organizations, are a problem right now, and do need to be dealt with out of what little predictive power we DO have. But you cannot predict how the past would go. War gave us the internet and women's rights, for crying out loud.
Oh, well I guess you are right there would have been wars, I'm sure even in a society with no religion ever they would have found some way to get the people to fight since the ones at the top of society weren't fighting for religion really, but instead for greed or in defence from someone elses greed. So yes, a secular society wouldn't have been perfect, but it would have been better. A society where everyone from birth was taught to question the world around them, and to take nothing on pure faith would have been better than ours.
Without religion there is no basis for oppressing women for example, so we wouldn't need to fight a war to give us womens rights since there would have been noone telling us women were worse with any higher power to back them up. So, when you ask a philosopher why women should be oppressed, and he loses the argument then the logical basis for oppression is gone. When you ask a priest, and he loses, then he can just claim that its what God wants.
Sexism is routed in things far deeper and more complicated than "religion caused it."
Yes, but religion trains people not to question ideas. If each generation had to question the logic of its parents morality as it pertained to modern society rather than being trained to just accept what the man in the sky said then it would have faded a lot earlier.
I think this is a little idealistic and it would be difficult to quantitatively back it up. You're going by a "what if" situation that we will never know the answer to, and until you can provide examples backing up your claim, then I don't think it's possible to accurately measure and answer this.
Religion is not the true cause of societies ills, however it is a highly useful tool for those who profit from those ills to use to get others to go along with them. Religion doesn't cause hate, but it gives you a justification. It doesn't make you beat your wife, but it tells you why she deserved it. It doesn't make you kill a man for being different, but it tells you why you get to go to heaven now that you have.
But you do realize that the sexism present in some religions is the product of the culture they were created from? A lack of religion would just lead to institutionalized sexism in a different form. You make the assumption that without religion, people would question this, when sexism stemming from atheists still isn't questioned.
When you have Harvard Dean's suggesting that women are less capable than men to handle the sciences, where religion didn't play a part in this educated man's rationale, then placing the cause of war, sexism, and all this crap on religion just seems a bit silly.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
[
I choose this way because it's the way I came up through things. In the end, I still had my fit of stepping away from religion and I went back to it when I was older, but with my own ideas about it and not strictly adhering to what I was told growing up. Just above, someone mentioned critical thinking, and that's something that I appreciate having been taught in school. So while sure, my kid will have doses of church before doses of school (where I hope critical thinking is something whatever teachers s/he gets do), I want my kids to get both. And I'd have to do my part at home to reinforce that critical thinking side.
the bolded, italicised part makes me think that you feel you're kids should follow you, and challenge believes you've shown them after accepting the for awhile, and then eventually come back like you did.
this pretty much goes against the idea most people on here have of giving childern a unbaised choice based on religion. If you emphasize one over all the others at a young age, doesn't usually matter how smart or critically thinking minded the kid is, they're going to biased towards what you've shown them in the long run
I guess this is where we're at an impasse then, I don't really have anything left to say that can defend my point.
Not that I technically need to, since how I raise my theoretical kids is my business gursh-dernit! :P
Yes but one of those arguments is a statement which can be analysed for truth, the other is not. As such, if you only have one argument then a smart person might disagree, however the same smart person having been given a good brainwashing by religion will jump right on board.
Whether they can actually be analyzed for truth is highly situational.
Pony, you are just as free to not explain your "religious" beliefs as I am free to ignore your unsupported assertion that you are "religious" and continue to define "religion" functionally and without regard to your mysterious beliefs.
Until you actually interact with this by explaining what your beliefs are and why a definition of "religion" should include them, I'm just going to ignore you, and I suggest everyone else do the same.
I'm really curious as to how you define religion 'functionally', and whether it comes down to 'religious people are those people that act dumb'. The impression I've been getting from you is 'Pony is too rational to be religious', which I really hope is not your actual thought process.
the point is, you feel thats its fine to imprint or indoctrinate your kids before they can truely think critically about the concept. Which makes it all the harder to leave later because thats the way you were brought up. It's not impossible to make a clean break from that, but its an ingrained pattern of thought. I've met people, myself incluced, that sort of have to not slip back into thinking a certain way about religion because that the way we were raised for a decade in our formative years. It also doesn't help that for catholics, you're put through confession, eucharist, and confirmation before/around the time you hit high school, which asks a ton of faith based confirmation and its not like every kid can or will go against their parents at that point.
I don't necessarily agree with the bolded statement. Kids can ask curveball questions before the age of 10. In fact, this is why I didn't give any sort of hard timeline regarding when I'd leave it up to my kid about wanting to go to church or not. As for indoctrination, I'm not going to be one of those people who tells their kid evolution is a bad thing. It'd be nice for my kids to embrace some amount of my religious belief, but I want them to embrace the things we know to be true in the world, or have the most evidence supporting it.
Ultimately, it's all in how I raise my kids. Which is a staggering thing to think about right now.
when i said indoctrination, it's not like i meant crazy fundie, it was more that you would be giving your future kid a bias towards your faith. I understand that this happens between parents and their children anyway, but it does seem that you're doing it in the reverse way like someone already said. If they can't think critically enough to question faith, then all taking them to church will do is further bias them when they can question thing
ronzo on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out.
I'm not prepared for situations where my kid asks what happens when we die and I haven't introduced them to religion.
Pony, until you are actually willing to discuss the nature of your religious ideas, stop using them as an argument, you're making shit more confusing than it needs to be.
Bullshit.
They're unimportant to the conversation at hand,
No they're not. You've repeatedly cited them as evidence that someone's definition of religion doesn't include you.
If you're not willing to explain why this is the case, then stop bringing up your mysterious beliefs and stop objecting when people use definitions of religion that you don't think include your beliefs. It's obnoxious.
Actually, I've explained why this isn't the case!
For example, let's look at tbloxham's laughable definition of religion I openly objected to:
Religion is anything which is not allowed to be questioned (or which doesn't care about the answers to questions), and anything which presents a belief system mandated by a higher power who is infallible or inhuman.
My religious faith is not unable to be questioned. In fact, the nature of my faith encourages such questioning by people who profess to practice it! It would also be inaccurate to say that my belief system is mandated by a higher power who is infallible or inhuman. This is not the case.
And my religious faith isn't aberrant or special in this regard! There are many, many religions in the world to whom the two statements tbloxham defined as being indicative of religion does not apply, and yet those beliefs could still be considered religions.
If you think I am wrong, and you actually disagree with me about the above point, I am perfectly able to source and cite a variety of religious beliefs, institutions, and groups that will support my argument that what tbloxham's is saying is not universally applicable to all religions.
Is that what you disagree with? Because that's what I'm saying here.
So if you disagree with what I am saying, do so, and show your work! Show me what you actually disagree with and what your reasoning is for doing so.
There's nothing to disagree with. You haven't explained what your beliefs are. It is pretty amazing that you actually think we have some kind of burden of proof here.
I'm not talking about my religious beliefs in particular, nor am I presenting them for argument as agreeable or disagreeable. That isn't the subject of this thread, or my posts in it. I am making points like the above ("That definition of religion is inaccurate and foolish") and if you disagree with them, feel free to explain how.
Because I was taken to church when I was a kid and was also taught critical thinking and questioning skills when I was raised, and I want to do what I can to emulate that for my kids. I like to think that in the end, everything that was a factor in how I was brought up made me the person I am today (tolerant of people's lifestyles and choices despite disagreement, intolerant of those who are intolerant themselves).
That said, it might be really useful to take them to different kinds of religious centers, if only to expand their notion of what religion consists of.
I highly suggest Buddhist temples. Makes for a nice contrast to make sure your kid doesn't reject religious -people- wholesale even if they do reject religion.
Why not go in the other direction and talk about what religion has done concerning positive change in the world? Off the top of my head I am thinking of the civil rights movement in the US. Giving a group of people the courage to stand up to an oppressive system was often found in their own religious circles. Also many figures used religion to spread the message of equality. Ironic in some respects, I know.
The lineage of the Dalai Lama has had great impact. I'm sure some bad, but good as well. Some religions have kept entire cultures out of conflict only because of their beliefs.
I have to agree with some of the other posters. Most any person will find a reason to perform whatever action they wish to perform. Religion is often a tool or a reason but not one that cannot be easily replaced in the minds of most people.
SkannerJAT on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
My religious faith is not unable to be questioned. In fact, the nature of my faith encourages such questioning by people who profess to practice it! It would also be inaccurate to say that my belief system is mandated by a higher power who is infallible or inhuman. This is not the case.
Since your religious faith is apparently idiosyncratic to you, I am puzzled as to how questioning can be encouraged.
Hachface on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Because I was taken to church when I was a kid and was also taught critical thinking and questioning skills when I was raised, and I want to do what I can to emulate that for my kids. I like to think that in the end, everything that was a factor in how I was brought up made me the person I am today (tolerant of people's lifestyles and choices despite disagreement, intolerant of those who are intolerant themselves).
That said, it might be really useful to take them to different kinds of religious centers, if only to expand their notion of what religion consists of.
I highly suggest Buddhist temples. Makes for a nice contrast to make sure your kid doesn't reject religious -people- wholesale even if they do reject religion.
That'd take a lot of time. I wonder if it'd be best to leave out actual participation and introduce them to Wikipedia and a list of things to search.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic by the way, because exposure to other religions is a valid point in all this. I didn't get any sort of education concerning other religions 'til freshman year in highschool, and this was after my fit of leaving my own religion. I can't be sure the same thing will happen to my own kids.
Pony, you are just as free to not explain your "religious" beliefs as I am free to ignore your unsupported assertion that you are "religious" and continue to define "religion" functionally and without regard to your mysterious beliefs.
Until you actually interact with this by explaining what your beliefs are and why a definition of "religion" should include them, I'm just going to ignore you, and I suggest everyone else do the same.
I'm really curious as to how you define religion 'functionally', and whether it comes down to 'religious people are those people that act dumb'. The impression I've been getting from you is 'Pony is too rational to be religious', which I really hope is not your actual thought process.
Yeah, it honestly appears to me that Qingu's reasoning is based on... I'm not sure, exactly. To be perfectly honest I've never understood his "functionally atheist" idea and he's never really clarified what he means when I've asked him before or now.
To the best I can deduce, he is drawing this conclusion given that I decline to get into particulars about my belief or that I'm not a pushy jerk in my public life about my religion.
Because my faith and practices are private, he decides they are apparently inconsequential. Because I appear, to surface inspection, to exhibit no obvious indicators of religious faith and that my practices are my own, they are somehow irrelevant to my daily life or how I see the world.
In Qingu's opinion, it appears, you're only "really religious" if you are preachy and show your faith off to others.
That seems very shallow.
If I'm wrong, Qingu, please explain to me how.
Pony on
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out.
I'm not prepared for situations where my kid asks what happens when we die and I haven't introduced them to religion.
At this point you pull out your projector and powerpoint presentation filled with religious passages and diagrams and begin your four hour long speech prefaced with "In this installment of Unbiased Parental Spirituality Teachings we will discuss what happens when you die in at least ten major religions as well as the atheistic belief."
This would be awesome for "where babies come from" too.
Yes, but they aren't as good, and they aren't as cunningly packaged as religion. If their 'reasons and logic' for being bastards are weaker, they'll be able to persuade less people of their cause and thus things will be better.
You appear to be horribly ignorant about the Enlightenment, the cultural response to the discovery of Evolution, etc.
Err, if religion is not a reason for war and hate, then it is an excuse.
If it wasn't a good excuse people wouldn't use it so much
If people didn't have such a good excuse they wouldn't seem as persuasive and wouldn't be able to get as many other people on board with their bad ideas.
Again, horribly ignorant.
You need to read more about history before you can start making bold statements on how you could make it better.
I don't quite see what your point is here. I know quite a lot about history, what aspect of it shall I look at where my quite simple rationality would be disproved.
Do this!
Why?
A and B and C.
Is a weaker argument than
Do this!
Why
A and B.
Yes, people have done awful things for non religious reasons. I say it is patently obvious that if you throw religious reasons into the mix it is easier to persuade people to do things.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
[
I choose this way because it's the way I came up through things. In the end, I still had my fit of stepping away from religion and I went back to it when I was older, but with my own ideas about it and not strictly adhering to what I was told growing up. Just above, someone mentioned critical thinking, and that's something that I appreciate having been taught in school. So while sure, my kid will have doses of church before doses of school (where I hope critical thinking is something whatever teachers s/he gets do), I want my kids to get both. And I'd have to do my part at home to reinforce that critical thinking side.
the bolded, italicised part makes me think that you feel you're kids should follow you, and challenge believes you've shown them after accepting the for awhile, and then eventually come back like you did.
this pretty much goes against the idea most people on here have of giving childern a unbaised choice based on religion. If you emphasize one over all the others at a young age, doesn't usually matter how smart or critically thinking minded the kid is, they're going to biased towards what you've shown them in the long run
I guess this is where we're at an impasse then, I don't really have anything left to say that can defend my point.
edit: hen i've got to jet for a bit, throw me a PM though if you've got anything you want to respond to though
Not that I technically need to, since how I raise my theoretical kids is my business gursh-dernit! :P
i suppose. part of the reaon i debated you about it all was pretty much because this was how i brought up, except i had catholic school for a number of years before middle/high school. Because of that, i tend to resent the fact i really had no say in matters of religious unbringing until i was able to go against my parents in high school. I don't feel its the right way to do things. If my kids find religion on their own and its what makes them happy, more power to them, but i do not want them to stick with a religion because they were told how to think about things before they could question it
you have been far more rational in debating this point than some people i've talked to about this topic, even if i believe you're starting from a irrational point of view
Why not go in the other direction and talk about what religion has done concerning positive change in the world? Off the top of my head I am thinking of the civil rights movement in the US. Giving a group of people the courage to stand up to an oppressive system was often found in their own religious circles. Also many figures used religion to spread the message of equality. Ironic in some respects, I know.
The Abolitionist movement was pretty heavily based among churches in the North. Of course, there were churches in the South that argued slavery was Biblically justified and/or good (though religion wasn't responsible for slavery in the US).
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out.
I'm not prepared for situations where my kid asks what happens when we die and I haven't introduced them to religion.
At this point you pull out your projector and powerpoint presentation filled with religious passages and diagrams and begin your four hour long speech prefaced with "In this installment of Unbiased Parental Spirituality Teachings we will discuss what happens when you die in at least ten major religions as well as the atheistic belief."
This would be awesome for "where babies come from" too.
I'm more intimidated by the "where babies come from" question than the death one, ironically. I mean, there's only one answer, but trying to gloss it down for a kid to understand and not get weirded out by is gonna take some word-ju-jitsu.
That'd take a lot of time. I wonder if it'd be best to leave out actual participation and introduce them to Wikipedia and a list of things to search.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic by the way, because exposure to other religions is a valid point in all this. I didn't get any sort of education concerning other religions 'til freshman year in highschool, and this was after my fit of leaving my own religion. I can't be sure the same thing will happen to my own kids.
Nah, attending a Buddhist temple isn't any more time-consuming than a Sunday at a Christian church. At least not in the States.
My religious faith is not unable to be questioned. In fact, the nature of my faith encourages such questioning by people who profess to practice it! It would also be inaccurate to say that my belief system is mandated by a higher power who is infallible or inhuman. This is not the case.
Since your religious faith is apparently idiosyncratic to you, I am puzzled as to how questioning can be encouraged.
How's that?
I don't think I've ever said that I am somehow unique. I'm actually part of a community! I mean obviously that's tough to tell, I am just one dude you are talking to on the internet, but I mean if someone says "how does this statement not apply to you?" and I explain why, I'm at a loss as to how further argue the point after that.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
I don't quite see what your point is here. I know quite a lot about history, what aspect of it shall I look at where my quite simple rationality would be disproved.
Do this!
Why?
A and B and C.
Is a weaker argument than
Do this!
Why
A and B.
Yes, people have done awful things for non religious reasons. I say it is patently obvious that if you throw religious reasons into the mix it is easier to persuade people to do things.
When you take away C people invent a new C.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
My religious faith is not unable to be questioned. In fact, the nature of my faith encourages such questioning by people who profess to practice it! It would also be inaccurate to say that my belief system is mandated by a higher power who is infallible or inhuman. This is not the case.
Since your religious faith is apparently idiosyncratic to you, I am puzzled as to how questioning can be encouraged.
How's that?
I don't think I've ever said that I am somehow unique. I'm actually part of a community! I mean obviously that's tough to tell, I am just one dude you are talking to on the internet, but I mean if someone says "how does this statement not apply to you?" and I explain why, I'm at a loss as to how further argue the point after that.
Well you haven't really explained how any statement does not apply to you. You've merely asserted that they don't. What does "questioning" mean to you?
Yes, but they aren't as good, and they aren't as cunningly packaged as religion. If their 'reasons and logic' for being bastards are weaker, they'll be able to persuade less people of their cause and thus things will be better.
You appear to be horribly ignorant about the Enlightenment, the cultural response to the discovery of Evolution, etc.
Err, if religion is not a reason for war and hate, then it is an excuse.
If it wasn't a good excuse people wouldn't use it so much
If people didn't have such a good excuse they wouldn't seem as persuasive and wouldn't be able to get as many other people on board with their bad ideas.
Again, horribly ignorant.
You need to read more about history before you can start making bold statements on how you could make it better.
I don't quite see what your point is here. I know quite a lot about history, what aspect of it shall I look at where my quite simple rationality would be disproved.
Do this!
Why?
A and B and C.
Is a weaker argument than
Do this!
Why
A and B.
Yes, people have done awful things for non religious reasons. I say it is patently obvious that if you throw religious reasons into the mix it is easier to persuade people to do things.
And what we're saying is that you are using religion as THE variable that is entered into every equation, where as we are saying that X is the answer - a variable - which would have easily been something else.
I mean honestly - you don't think people were questioning religion in the past? Galileo? Tycho Brahe? Kepler?
I hate to bring up Hitler, but he's an obvious example of someone who attempted to use Christianity, was rejected, and then used science (darwinism) to back up his perverted ideology.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
At the UW in Seattle one of the Catholic church-looking buildings has a relief bust of a guy in a Gas Mask which is pretty badass.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out.
I'm not prepared for situations where my kid asks what happens when we die and I haven't introduced them to religion.
At this point you pull out your projector and powerpoint presentation filled with religious passages and diagrams and begin your four hour long speech prefaced with "In this installment of Unbiased Parental Spirituality Teachings we will discuss what happens when you die in at least ten major religions as well as the atheistic belief."
This would be awesome for "where babies come from" too.
I'm more intimidated by the "where babies come from" question than the death one, ironically. I mean, there's only one answer, but trying to gloss it down for a kid to understand and not get weirded out by is gonna take some word-ju-jitsu.
No no see, if you're lucky, you just gross your kid out and you don't have to worry about them having sex, getting various stds and knocking girls up/getting knocked up until they're out of the house.
I think just showing them the video of their birth would suffice for this and be plenty scarring. If you showed that video at his/her thirteenth (and every subsequent) birthday party, it would help on the end of people having sex with him/her too.
ChaosHat on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Ah, I see you've used Irrefutable Logic to reach this conclusion.
CheerfulBear on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
"Yea, look upon this hydrogen atom and be inspired. Know that if this were to scale, this building would be the size of the sun. Also, the distance between the nucleus and electrons has been shrunk to fit on the canvas. Indeed, with a nucleus this big, we would need a canvas the size of a football field to accurately depict it."
Posts
I really cannot recommend Eichmann in Jerusalem highly enough.
Again, horribly ignorant.
You need to read more about history before you can start making bold statements on how you could make it better.
Yes but one of those arguments is a statement which can be analysed for truth, the other is not. As such, if you only have one argument then a smart person might disagree, however the same smart person having been given a good brainwashing by religion will jump right on board.
Because I was taken to church when I was a kid and was also taught critical thinking and questioning skills when I was raised, and I want to do what I can to emulate that for my kids. I like to think that in the end, everything that was a factor in how I was brought up made me the person I am today (tolerant of people's lifestyles and choices despite disagreement, intolerant of those who are intolerant themselves).
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out. Not exactly feasible, but I mean, if you wanted to ensure tabula rasa by the time they could make that decision for themselves, you'd have to do it like that. I could see the above method of just presenting a bunch of shit when they're little, but that would be confusing in a "so wait, Jesus and Muhammad were friends with the Elephant man who says I'll never die but come back as a fly if I'm bad?"
Until you actually interact with this by explaining what your beliefs are and why a definition of "religion" should include them, I'm just going to ignore you, and I suggest everyone else do the same.
I think this is a little idealistic and it would be difficult to quantitatively back it up. You're going by a "what if" situation that we will never know the answer to, and until you can provide examples backing up your claim, then I don't think it's possible to accurately measure and answer this.
But you do realize that the sexism present in some religions is the product of the culture they were created from? A lack of religion would just lead to institutionalized sexism in a different form. You make the assumption that without religion, people would question this, when sexism stemming from atheists still isn't questioned.
When you have Harvard Dean's suggesting that women are less capable than men to handle the sciences, where religion didn't play a part in this educated man's rationale, then placing the cause of war, sexism, and all this crap on religion just seems a bit silly.
I guess this is where we're at an impasse then, I don't really have anything left to say that can defend my point.
Not that I technically need to, since how I raise my theoretical kids is my business gursh-dernit! :P
Whether they can actually be analyzed for truth is highly situational.
I'm really curious as to how you define religion 'functionally', and whether it comes down to 'religious people are those people that act dumb'. The impression I've been getting from you is 'Pony is too rational to be religious', which I really hope is not your actual thought process.
when i said indoctrination, it's not like i meant crazy fundie, it was more that you would be giving your future kid a bias towards your faith. I understand that this happens between parents and their children anyway, but it does seem that you're doing it in the reverse way like someone already said. If they can't think critically enough to question faith, then all taking them to church will do is further bias them when they can question thing
I'm not prepared for situations where my kid asks what happens when we die and I haven't introduced them to religion.
Actually, I've explained why this isn't the case!
For example, let's look at tbloxham's laughable definition of religion I openly objected to:
My religious faith is not unable to be questioned. In fact, the nature of my faith encourages such questioning by people who profess to practice it! It would also be inaccurate to say that my belief system is mandated by a higher power who is infallible or inhuman. This is not the case.
And my religious faith isn't aberrant or special in this regard! There are many, many religions in the world to whom the two statements tbloxham defined as being indicative of religion does not apply, and yet those beliefs could still be considered religions.
If you think I am wrong, and you actually disagree with me about the above point, I am perfectly able to source and cite a variety of religious beliefs, institutions, and groups that will support my argument that what tbloxham's is saying is not universally applicable to all religions.
Is that what you disagree with? Because that's what I'm saying here.
I'm not talking about my religious beliefs in particular, nor am I presenting them for argument as agreeable or disagreeable. That isn't the subject of this thread, or my posts in it. I am making points like the above ("That definition of religion is inaccurate and foolish") and if you disagree with them, feel free to explain how.
That said, it might be really useful to take them to different kinds of religious centers, if only to expand their notion of what religion consists of.
I highly suggest Buddhist temples. Makes for a nice contrast to make sure your kid doesn't reject religious -people- wholesale even if they do reject religion.
The lineage of the Dalai Lama has had great impact. I'm sure some bad, but good as well. Some religions have kept entire cultures out of conflict only because of their beliefs.
I have to agree with some of the other posters. Most any person will find a reason to perform whatever action they wish to perform. Religion is often a tool or a reason but not one that cannot be easily replaced in the minds of most people.
Since your religious faith is apparently idiosyncratic to you, I am puzzled as to how questioning can be encouraged.
That'd take a lot of time. I wonder if it'd be best to leave out actual participation and introduce them to Wikipedia and a list of things to search.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic by the way, because exposure to other religions is a valid point in all this. I didn't get any sort of education concerning other religions 'til freshman year in highschool, and this was after my fit of leaving my own religion. I can't be sure the same thing will happen to my own kids.
Yeah, it honestly appears to me that Qingu's reasoning is based on... I'm not sure, exactly. To be perfectly honest I've never understood his "functionally atheist" idea and he's never really clarified what he means when I've asked him before or now.
To the best I can deduce, he is drawing this conclusion given that I decline to get into particulars about my belief or that I'm not a pushy jerk in my public life about my religion.
Because my faith and practices are private, he decides they are apparently inconsequential. Because I appear, to surface inspection, to exhibit no obvious indicators of religious faith and that my practices are my own, they are somehow irrelevant to my daily life or how I see the world.
In Qingu's opinion, it appears, you're only "really religious" if you are preachy and show your faith off to others.
That seems very shallow.
If I'm wrong, Qingu, please explain to me how.
At this point you pull out your projector and powerpoint presentation filled with religious passages and diagrams and begin your four hour long speech prefaced with "In this installment of Unbiased Parental Spirituality Teachings we will discuss what happens when you die in at least ten major religions as well as the atheistic belief."
This would be awesome for "where babies come from" too.
I don't quite see what your point is here. I know quite a lot about history, what aspect of it shall I look at where my quite simple rationality would be disproved.
Do this!
Why?
A and B and C.
Is a weaker argument than
Do this!
Why
A and B.
Yes, people have done awful things for non religious reasons. I say it is patently obvious that if you throw religious reasons into the mix it is easier to persuade people to do things.
i suppose. part of the reaon i debated you about it all was pretty much because this was how i brought up, except i had catholic school for a number of years before middle/high school. Because of that, i tend to resent the fact i really had no say in matters of religious unbringing until i was able to go against my parents in high school. I don't feel its the right way to do things. If my kids find religion on their own and its what makes them happy, more power to them, but i do not want them to stick with a religion because they were told how to think about things before they could question it
you have been far more rational in debating this point than some people i've talked to about this topic, even if i believe you're starting from a irrational point of view
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm more intimidated by the "where babies come from" question than the death one, ironically. I mean, there's only one answer, but trying to gloss it down for a kid to understand and not get weirded out by is gonna take some word-ju-jitsu.
Nah, attending a Buddhist temple isn't any more time-consuming than a Sunday at a Christian church. At least not in the States.
How's that?
I don't think I've ever said that I am somehow unique. I'm actually part of a community! I mean obviously that's tough to tell, I am just one dude you are talking to on the internet, but I mean if someone says "how does this statement not apply to you?" and I explain why, I'm at a loss as to how further argue the point after that.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
When you take away C people invent a new C.
Well you haven't really explained how any statement does not apply to you. You've merely asserted that they don't. What does "questioning" mean to you?
And what we're saying is that you are using religion as THE variable that is entered into every equation, where as we are saying that X is the answer - a variable - which would have easily been something else.
I mean honestly - you don't think people were questioning religion in the past? Galileo? Tycho Brahe? Kepler?
I hate to bring up Hitler, but he's an obvious example of someone who attempted to use Christianity, was rejected, and then used science (darwinism) to back up his perverted ideology.
Your rationality has defeated me.
No, at that point you pull out your robe and wizard hat.
At the UW in Seattle one of the Catholic church-looking buildings has a relief bust of a guy in a Gas Mask which is pretty badass.
No no see, if you're lucky, you just gross your kid out and you don't have to worry about them having sex, getting various stds and knocking girls up/getting knocked up until they're out of the house.
I think just showing them the video of their birth would suffice for this and be plenty scarring. If you showed that video at his/her thirteenth (and every subsequent) birthday party, it would help on the end of people having sex with him/her too.
That'll keep the kid permanantly away from Harry Potter, at least.
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Ah, I see you've used Irrefutable Logic to reach this conclusion.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
Carl Sagan would probably disagree with you, then float off into the sky.
"Yea, look upon this hydrogen atom and be inspired. Know that if this were to scale, this building would be the size of the sun. Also, the distance between the nucleus and electrons has been shrunk to fit on the canvas. Indeed, with a nucleus this big, we would need a canvas the size of a football field to accurately depict it."