Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
My point is that this indoctrination is harmful. Teaching children to ignore things like science seems rather harmful to me even without the religious aspect.

You're extending your criticism of a particularly bad example to religion, and religious education, as a whole. Which is just Godwin's Law in a different wrapper.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Yes, they can. But should they be able to? That is my point. Not "is it legal?" but "is it right?"

Yes, they should be able to. Preventing them from doing so is every bit as bad as the dogmatic thinking you're railing against.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
More harm than good is caused by it was my point here.

That's an impossible point to prove. It also tends to be one of those things spouted off at random by people that do little but prove fanaticism is not limited to the religious.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Not at all. I also hope that you don't think of Buddhism as a religion. Tibetan Buddhism venerates the Buddha as a god, but other sects do not, and the Dalai Lama calls Buddhism a "science of the mind" rather than a religion. He also says that if reliable science were to disprove any of his Buddhist beliefs that he would be willing to discard them.

That is not a destructive force, in my opinion. But then again, I don't see it as a religion.

Buddhism is a religion because it is a set of beliefs about the metaphysical. That's all that is necessary for something to be considered a religion.

As far as destruction goes, see the various riots in Tibet last year.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
How'd you guess that I wasn't a theologian? I don't see how I'm misunderstanding "Love thy neighbor as thyself" "Turn the other cheek" or "Thou shalt not kill." Especially that last one. Either way I'm just going off of what I've read out of the Bible and heard in 15 or so years worth of attending a Presbyterian church.

First of all, it isn't "Though shall not kill", its "Though shall not murder". In the context of the Bible this commandment essentially forbids the killing of fellows, while allowing for the removal of others in the event of conflict.

In the same vein, "Love they neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" apply only to members of the community.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
Religion is not a destructive force? So Muslim extremists aren't destructive? Evangelicals shooting abortion doctors isn't destructive.

I find it interesting that you can pare away all the other factors which compel people to violence and conclude that religion must have been the primary motivation. Not politics, economics, culture, or personal vendetta...just religion.

sebster wrote:*Of course, what really spurs people into action is ideology. If you start looking at ideologies with atheist underpinnings the situation is markedly worse than those with religious underpinnings. But communism skews the comparison quite a bit.

Communism is not atheist by nature. The Soviet system was anti-religious because it wanted no competition with the State. Thus, the Church had to go.

I disagree entirely with your statement. Atheist ideologies like Humanism are just as "good" as religion, and with the bonus that Humanism doesn't see anyone as "non-believers."
Your statement is far too sweeping and general in my opinion.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Communism is not atheist by nature. The Soviet system was anti-religious because it wanted no competition with the State. Thus, the Church had to go.

I disagree entirely with your statement. Atheist ideologies like Humanism are just as "good" as religion, and with the bonus that Humanism doesn't see anyone as "non-believers."
Your statement is far too sweeping and general in my opinion.

Have you read any Marx? It is explicitly materialist and rejects religion entirely. And I say this as an atheist and a Marxian*.

Humanism is great, but it is also very small. Atheist movements on the whole are very small, which is why I noted communism as a huge outlier skewing the comparison.




*Different to Marxist, as Marxist agree with the conclusions of Marx in forming an international proletariat of the blah blah... Marxians agree with the process Marx identified, of seeing different economic models leading to various societies, and the imbalances in each model leading to the overthrow of the previous model with the next. We just think the next series of economic systems and models will be quite different to those Marx predicted.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
I disagree entirely with your statement. Atheist ideologies like Humanism are just as "good" as religion, and with the bonus that Humanism doesn't see anyone as "non-believers."

Many Christian sects operate in a similar fashion, which isn't surprising given that Humanism has its roots in the church.

Islam has parallel schools of thought, but never fully avoids the notion that the Qu'ran is God's finest revelation.

Getting back on topic:

Personally, I'm agnostic. I notice alot of people claim to be Atheists, which in my opinion is claiming to be as "knowing" as a follower of any religion. Atheism means you believe there are no gods whatsoever, whereas Agnostic is like " well, I dunno. " This opens up some interesting doors. If there is a god, you havn't denounced him/her/it completely, but shown that you're no sheep, and like to make your own descisions. Any good (by our standards) god would recognise that as a good trait, and if it's their thing (Like most religions seem to claim), they'll reward you for it. If not, You diddn't live your life the way you don't want to, without knowing it was the right thing to do. Either way, I try to live my life as a good person. I've read parts of the bible, and after all the "God is awesome. worship him, you fools!" stuff is out of the way it has some good lessons. As to the idea of an afterlife: Again, as an agnostic, I just don't know. The idea of not existing is terrifying to me as well, but I figure if i don't exist, i won't experience not existing, so the only effect it will ever have on my is the fear of it. So I choose not to believe either way. There *might* be an afterlife, and that possibility is really enough for me to not be afraid of death. It might not be enough for everyone, but it lets me sleep at night. It's kind of peculiar that I'm satisfied with that uncertainty; i'm one who hates not knowing. The bottom line is thus: You KNOW you have this one life. Live it well, live it how YOU choose to. If god truely exists and is good, he shouldn't have a problem with that. If there is an afterlife, you'll ahve a good one. if not, you won't exist to miss it. There is still the possibility. Take comfort in that I say.

I think you should inquire more closely into why your dad (and a billion other people) take their Catholicism so seriously. There are a lot of different viewpoints even within Catholicism. Rather than reading a book, I would recommend listening to some music: the Kyrie from Mozart's Great Mass or Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, for example. You could also listen to Spem in Alium by Thomas Tallis. Or you could look to visual art: the paintings of Fra Aneglico, Carravagio, da Vinci, and countless others. Perhaps the sculpture of Bernini might teach you a thing or two. Try meditating upon the great cathedrals. The point is that Catholicism is not the result of fanaticism or mindlessness. It has inspired and, in turn, been shaped by billions of lives--many, many thousands of whom are the great artists of our culture. The amateur intellectual approach will not help you ask questions about faith, I'm afraid. If you're serious (not just going through a "phase"), it would be wise to SLOWLY learn about Western mysticism.

spartanghost wrote:Getting back on topic:

Personally, I'm agnostic. I notice alot of people claim to be Atheists, which in my opinion is claiming to be as "knowing" as a follower of any religion. Atheism means you believe there are no gods whatsoever, whereas Agnostic is like " well, I dunno. "

I don't think you have to claim to be 'knowing' when it can just be a statement of personal belief. Much as a Christian can say 'my personal belief is that Jesus is the son of God', and atheist can say 'my personal belief is that there is no afterlife'. Both people can make their own statements without denigrating anyone else.

I mean, I'm an atheist. I don't claim to 'know', but it is what I believe and it underpins my thoughts.

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm agnostic because I believe that God's existence is a possibility, but I'm also an atheist because I don't think there's enough evidence for his existence to justify believing it to be the case. (This is in contrast to "strong atheism," where it is believed to be knowable fact that god does not exist.)

Yep. When you claim to be an agnostic you are making a statement of knowledge. When you claim to be an atheist you are making a statement of belief.

Personally, I think that once you identify as an agnostic the divide between atheism and theism is purely semantic, but that doesn't stop a lot of quasi-intellectuals from disagreeing with me. Especially that bastard Sam Harris.

Agnostic means don't know if there is a god (and you aren't going to assume so).
Atheist means you know there in no god.
Right?

You would also have to ask yourself, what is God?
Is he a person. With morals and such, and a personality. Or is he more of a "it". A being, a thing. A force so powerful and yet benignly sentinent?
Is god influenced by our actions? Our deeds?

Also, to the point of right and wrong. If you believe there is no right and wrong, then look at the following situation.
A young girl (8) is taken from her family in an unkown country. She and her sisters are forced by guerillas to speed across a grest distance barefoot. When one the the little girls begs to stop and rest she is taken to a tree and shot. Another girl tries to run away and is chased down. The other children are then forced to kill thier own sister at the order of the soldiers at gunpoint.

When they get to the hidden camp. The boys are made into Child Soldiers and the girls are given as gifts. Sex-slaves to the older soldiers.

Is this wrong? Do you really think that such things are anything but evil?

Emperors Faithful wrote:A young girl (8) is taken from her family in an unkown country. She and her sisters are forced by guerillas to speed across a grest distance barefoot. When one the the little girls begs to stop and rest she is taken to a tree and shot. Another girl tries to run away and is chased down. The other children are then forced to kill thier own sister at the order of the soldiers at gunpoint.

When they get to the hidden camp. The boys are made into Child Soldiers and the girls are given as gifts. Sex-slaves to the older soldiers.

Is this wrong? Do you really think that such things are anything but evil?

Nope. It is no more "Evil" than anything else in the world.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Agnostic means don't know if there is a god (and you aren't going to assume so).

Agnostic is that there is a "god" or some sort of spiritual/higher energy, but that it is impossible to understand what these "god(s)"/ higher energy(ies) are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

As a member of what could be considered a fairly 'hard core' Christian denomination, the United Church of God (http://www.ucg.org), I'm finding this a fascinating discussion, but I'm going to stay out of it for the most part as I know my churches overall beliefs are far too polarizing. I don't agree with all of them (Notably the Creationist viewpoint, I'm more in the theistic evolution camp myself), but most of them make sense to me (Keeping the Leviticus Holy Days and such)

I've found that many, if not most, people who describe themselves as Atheist tend to be of a more Agnostic bent (believing in some form of higher power but not describing it as 'God' or 'a god'

lord_sutekh wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You both come across as Nazi Bigots.

That would be a misrepresentation, as the Third Reich was a staunchly Christian political structure.

I'm not an expert on NAZI's so you could be correct. But what I have seen in documentaries shows that the NAZIs, were Occultic and anti Christian. So much so that the SS groups would destroy Churches in Poland and France when they entered. They would replace the Crosses with swastickas. I don't think they did it every where but there were examples of this behaviour.

My mian point was to try and make Falcon and Gwar realize the comments they were making were very closeminded and bigoted, much like Nazis. The idea of calling a religious school indoctrination, as though that indoctrination was somehow immorral, was particular offensive to me.
Like dogma said all schools indoctrinate, whether it be Abrham Lincoln High, Fist Baptist School, or Mary Magdelene Catholic School.

To single out the religious schools indoctrination as immoral was a bigoted comment.

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:You aught to care. That kind of brainwashing is akin to child abuse. Assuming they were brought up on it. If an adult were to come upon that and accept it well... you cant help some people.

Dude, get out of my head!

That is exactly my view too. If you are an adult and willingly get into it, more fool you, but pressing it on children when they do not know better is wrong.

Ah yeah well, were you raised christian too? I got sent to christian school up until my parents couldn't afford. I always felt out of place, and uncomfortable really, during the sermons. After I grew up and learned the meaning of indoctrination i was FURIOUS with my parents. Worst part is, theyre doing it to my little sister now. I saw one of her homework assignments a few months ago. She had to do alittle craft project and make suffering sinner out of construction paper and write a sentence about why he was suffering. Her science book? "Do you know why you have five fingers on each hand! Because God knew thats how many you needed! Did you know he knows exactly how many hairs you have on your head? Luke 12:7 "But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Isn't God great?"

Made me sick.

Falcon... of course the obvious hypocracy of what you and Gwar are spouting is that you believe indoctrinating(as you put it) youth into Christian beliefs is somehow immoral, yet your perfectly fine with being indoctrinated in the "Holy" secular point of view.

You both come across as Nazi Bigots.


GG

Where to begin? Did you read what they wrote? Indoctrinating children so obviously is something that people should be worried about, especially when it produces things like the Creationism museum with the children and dinosaurs playing together. Either way, throwing around terms like Nazi Bigots is a sure way to "turn the other cheek," isn't it?

If you want to believe that something you can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell exists and controls everything, that's just fine. If you want to tell your kids the same thing, again, no worries. Once you put it into an institutional setting like a school you cross a line. Religion has its place for some people, but you should NOT teach religion side by side with hard facts. Even Christians (if I ever meet a real one) will say that faith is an important deal to them. If so, teach things that require a lot of faith (God) separately from things that require little to none (i.e. Gravity or Evolution).

My personal views are obvious from that statement. I'm an atheist. I believe in the Buddha's teachings and I find a lot of wisdom in Lao Tzu's writings (early Taoism). I'm not going to go as far as Gwar has, but if you fail to recognize religion as a destructive force you are fooling yourself.

When I say I've never met a real Christian, it's because I haven't. No Christians that I've met refuse to harm another. None of them truly devote themselves to the poor, none of them withhold judgment from others (i.e. Nazi Bigot comment). In short, a lot of them are good people, certainly. Some are terrible people. But none really follow the basic teachings of the religion.

The creationist museum is put in place by people that have a different world view than you do when it comes to Science. It doesn't mean that you hold the truth, it means that you have a point of view, and they have a point of view. We have had this debate allready many times on the off topic forum so I'm not going to go into great detail unless someone starts trying to "prove" macro evolution. You can scroll a few pages back to see the massive religion thread and evolution vs creation threads if your interested.

As far as the Nazi bigot comment. There is nothing about that comment that invalidates my Christianity. There is such a thing as righteuos indignation. Falcon and Gwar where making offfensive statements and I am within my right to call them on it. Also when you say you have never met a Christian, it sounds to me what you are really saying is that you have never met a "perfect" Christian. I'm here to to tell you that you will never find a "perfect" Christian, and that if your definition of a Christian is a "perfect" person than you are mistaken as well. This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". Yes they should grow spiritually and become a better person, and certainly strive for perfection, but perfection was only attained by one man, Jesus Christ.

GG

. I'm here to to tell you that you will never find a "perfect" Christian, and that if your definition of a Christian is a "perfect" person than you are mistaken as well. This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". Yes they should grow spiritually and become a better person, and certainly strive for perfection, but perfection was only attained by one man, Jesus Christ.

By the very nature of the faith there are no Christians, just those trying to follow the path. But of course you'd have to say the same about every faith.

I always enjoy watching these conversations devolve from the OT into a attack/defense of christianity. Its interesting to me that there are some nonreligious members here that proselytize more than the religious ones.

And thats why they typically get locked. This one probably should too but I've not read all the posts for that reason.

It's just pretty off-topic. But this is the OT forum. Oh well.

Frazzled wrote:

. I'm here to to tell you that you will never find a "perfect" Christian, and that if your definition of a Christian is a "perfect" person than you are mistaken as well. This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". Yes they should grow spiritually and become a better person, and certainly strive for perfection, but perfection was only attained by one man, Jesus Christ.

By the very nature of the faith there are no Christians, just those trying to follow the path. But of course you'd have to say the same about every faith.

Frazz could you explain what you mean here. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

GG

One of the problems I have with the existence of a god is that gods are typically omniscient.
If there truly was an omniscient god he must be truly sadistic. Why would he created people if he knew they were going to be mass murderers or terrorists? Why would he create diseases and famine? Why would he create people that he knew would invent the atomic bomb and so forth and so on? This is one of the major reasons I have trouble believing in a god.

Only Christ and a select few were utter perfect in the path sufficiently to be Christlike. The rest of us are just sinners trying to follow the way. Its like AA, there are no non-drinkers, just alcoholics who are trying not to drink.

Frazzled wrote:Only Christ and a select few were utter perfect in the path sufficiently to be Christlike. The rest of us are just sinners trying to follow the way. Its like AA, there are no non-drinkers, just alcoholics who are trying not to drink.

That's what I thought you meant, and it looks like you missed the whole "This is a common mistake unbelievers make, in thinking that when someone becomes a Christian they are somehow supposed to be "perfect". " sentence. (and I'm not accusing you of being an unbeliever)

Christianity and perfection are not mutually exclusive. The Bible teaches that the blood of Christ covers a believers sins, in Gods eyes we are perfect because he sees the Blood of Christ, just like the blood of the passover lamb during the Exodus from Egypt. Listen to the old hymm "Theres Power in the Blood".

Sorry for going off on a tangent there Frazz.

GG

No I didn't miss it. I don't agree with your statement.

Its a true semantic so as not to be relevant though.

rubiksnoob wrote:One of the problems I have with the existence of a god is that gods are typically omniscient.
If there truly was an omniscient god he must be truly sadistic. Why would he created people if he knew they were going to be mass murderers or terrorists? Why would he create diseases and famine? Why would he create people that he knew would invent the atomic bomb and so forth and so on? This is one of the major reasons I have trouble believing in a god.

Because God didn't want a bunch of robots? He gave us free will to choose to accept or reject Him. The things you mention are questions as old as time. Why does God allow bad things to happen. To be honest, I don't know. All I can say is that God's ways are not mans ways, and it's like an ant questioning a human why he does what he does. The ant may be able to get some understanding but will never be able to comprehend fully the ways of man.

GG

@ Mad Rabbit:

You mentioned something about it being wrong to put "Faith" teachings in schools, I agree if it's public school where the parents have no choice, but private school is quite another matter. It would be my preference that origins of the universe not be taught at all. Origins of the universe are theories built on theories at best, I grew up being taught these are hard facts and that to question them was absurd. Then I do some of my own research and Bam! realize that there was lots of science that went into the theories, but in the end they were based on assumptions that had no hope of being proved. Either teach it as "this might be true, but we don't know" or don't teach it at all.

youngblood wrote:@ Mad Rabbit:

You mentioned something about it being wrong to put "Faith" teachings in schools, I agree if it's public school where the parents have no choice, but private school is quite another matter. It would be my preference that origins of the universe not be taught at all. Origins of the universe are theories built on theories at best, I grew up being taught these are hard facts and that to question them was absurd. Then I do some of my own research and Bam! realize that there was lots of science that went into the theories, but in the end they were based on assumptions that had no hope of being proved. Either teach it as "this might be true, but we don't know" or don't teach it at all.

Youngblood wins the thread!!!


GG

generalgrog wrote:

Youngblood wins the thread!!!


GG

Don't say that, I'd rather stay a spectator.

youngblood wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Agnostic means don't know if there is a god (and you aren't going to assume so).

Agnostic is that there is a "god" or some sort of spiritual/higher energy, but that it is impossible to understand what these "god(s)"/ higher energy(ies) are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Those are both agnostic positions. The first is a form of strong, atheistic agnosticism, and the second is a form of weak, theistic agnosticism (though you could also call it atheistic; depending on whether or not you used the word God, or energy).

generalgrog wrote:

youngblood wrote:@ Mad Rabbit:

You mentioned something about it being wrong to put "Faith" teachings in schools, I agree if it's public school where the parents have no choice, but private school is quite another matter. It would be my preference that origins of the universe not be taught at all. Origins of the universe are theories built on theories at best, I grew up being taught these are hard facts and that to question them was absurd. Then I do some of my own research and Bam! realize that there was lots of science that went into the theories, but in the end they were based on assumptions that had no hope of being proved. Either teach it as "this might be true, but we don't know" or don't teach it at all.

Youngblood wins the thread!!!


GG

Hardly.

Compare the Christian (and one assumes Judaic and thus Islamic) version of creation, and the now generally accepted Scientific answer.

One is based on something written in a book which we are asked to believe is the infallible word of God. The other however, has some evidence and theory behind, which is the best Science can manage.

The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Now don't get me wrong, I do have utmost respect for the views of others, but when it comes to Religion, I feel people really need to be challenged heavily, as their views are based on things unprovable, unknowable, and are often embraced without question. Thankfully though, we as a people seem to be moving away from the dangers of blind faith, toward a more enlightened world where people explore their Religion properly, rather than just accept the Dogma passed down over the years.

Agreed dogma. I've met very polarized versions of agnosticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never said that creationism should be taught. I just said that they shouldn't teach theories as hard facts. It's bs. It's indoctrination.