Best Intentions - Dynamics of Spiritual Abuse

[lightgigantic]

Just a brief over view of something I am reading at the moment

What is spiritual abuse?


In their book, Healing Religious Addiction, the Linns (Dennis, Sheila and Matt Linn) define spiritual abuse quite broadly as denying other's spiritual freedom through claiming that only one's own way to God is valid (The Linns, p. 12). Johnson and Van Vonderen are more specific: 'Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person's spiritual empowerment' (Johnson and Van Vonderen, p. 20).

Spiritual abuse is perpetrated when, in the name of spirituality or spiritual authority, the individual's dignity and right to advance through serving God is violated.[4]

To help clarify the concept; some testimonies from various sources:

My bible study leader tells me that I haven't taken on the 'mantle' as spiritual head of my home. I should be praying more, taking authority in the Spirit — then spiritual forces wouldn't be able to attack my family. Then my wife wouldn't be having menstrual problems and my oldest son wouldn't be suffering from asthma. I guess their sickness is my fault. (Johnson and Van Vonderen, p. 21)

Being forced to defend yourself on the basis of quotes from religious books is very exhausting and discouraging. The whole process demonstrates a lack of emotional expression.You become very afraid and guilty for feeling, especially when those around you feel different. (VOICE, 1997, 4.3.2e)[5]

There is a common dynamic in the above examples — the person seeking spiritual guidance, in need of information, dialogue, support, acceptance or counsel, was made to feel that their spirituality was defective. This can impel a person to agree with a particular belief or to feel discouraged from asking legitimate (but potentially awkward) questions. This is the general dynamic.


Spiritual abuse frequently occurs in conjunction with other forms of abuse — or one could say that other forms of abuse, be they physical, psychological, emotional, sexual or financial, when perpetrated within a spiritual community or society, will have a spiritual component. The abuse is being backed up by authority and power derived from a spiritual institution or teaching. Those abused have had their boundaries beaten down, they have been shamed out of their 'no', had their discrimination clouded by someone else's religious agendas. Spiritual abuse does not refer to simple mistakes of judgement, but to concerted misuse of position or power. The dynamics, causes and consequences of spiritual abuse are relevant to all members of a spiritual society since abuse seems to be an unavoidable reality within any society, and spiritual abuse seems to be programmed into the process of spiritual growth, a point that I will discuss later in this article.

About abuse dynamics

Abuse can occur in any authority structure or wherever there is an assumption of authority[8] .

Based on researching problems in other institutions, reactions to our seminars and our experiences , we formulated the following list of dynamics conducive to abuse:

1. Unrealistic evaluation of spiritual acumen


a) Position/external success = spiritual advancement

2. Unrealistic expectations


a) The myth of the infallible leader


b) The myth of the totally surrendered subordinate

3. Misapplication of philosophy


a) Twisting theology or interpreting scripture to suit personal or institutional agendas


b) Sweeping problems under the carpet of spiritual catch-phrases

4. Coercion through shame and fear


a) Shaming people into submission and/or silence


b) Criticising/humiliating anyone with a different opinion or who notices a problem


c) Demonisation, name-calling and fear of ostracism as coercion methods

5. Premature transcendence


a) Elitism and exclusivism as a justification for segregation and prejudice


b) Ignoring physical, psychological, emotional or social needs


c) Encouraging renunciation far beyond a person's realisation

Virtually all the threads that have the potential for theistic discussion are burdened down with these issues so I thought it would be interesting to address them head on - any thoughts?

(in other words since it seems they get discussed by default anyway we might as well be open about it ;) )

[(Q)]

Of course, religions are all manmade used to control people. The article reflects that. God delusions can therefore be used for abuse, at length and to any purpose, only to be bounded by the individuals overactive imagination.

[philosopher´s stone]

So the definition of spiritual abuse is from your quote :
" Denying other´s spiritual freedom through claiming that only one´s own way to god is valid "

Well if you really are totally fanatic religious , then of course your OWN way is the only CORRECT way !!!

It is of course very sad that religious people want to brainwash other people into their
own belief ......

But then again , there is really nothing new in this !!!!!!
If you are having a delusional faith in something , then you want other people to share your views - you feel more comforted in that way - and can relax with other people, who share your induced delusion ........

;)

[philosopher´s stone]

And I am not even starting to talk about the christian paedophiles , that sexually abuse their younger followers ........... that is most often in the catholic church .....

[lightgigantic]

(Q)

Of course, religions are all manmade used to control people.
Not sure what you are advocating - that people don't need to be controlled?

[lightgigantic]

And I am not even starting to talk about the christian paedophiles , that sexually abuse their younger followers ........... that is most often in the catholic church .....

not sure if you read the context of the bit I put in bold - the article is about something else actually

[lightgigantic]

So the definition of spiritual abuse is from your quote :
" Denying other´s spiritual freedom through claiming that only one´s own way to god is valid "

Well if you really are totally fanatic religious , then of course your OWN way is the only CORRECT way !!!

It is of course very sad that religious people want to brainwash other people into their
own belief ......

But then again , there is really nothing new in this !!!!!!
If you are having a delusional faith in something , then you want other people to share your views - you feel more comforted in that way - and can relax with other people, who share your induced delusion ........

;)

Actually its common to experience the same "techniques" of abuse at the hands of atheists out to "convert" the masses

[philosopher´s stone]

Could be - at least the atheists are only trying to correct the delusions of the religious people !!!!!!!!!

;)

[philosopher´s stone]

not sure if you read the context of the bit I put in bold - the article is about something else actually

Yep , that is why I am not starting to talk about the paedophilia amongst religious people !!!

[lightgigantic]

Could be - at least the atheists are only trying to correct the delusions of the religious people !!!!!!!!!

;)


Does that entitle them to be abusive too?

[philosopher´s stone]

Does that entitle them to be abusive too?


Well , that actually depend of how they act - I mean if they only want to correct delusional thoughts and behaviour by talking with the religious people , then it is OK ....

If they start locking up religious people in locked psyciatric ward like the communists did in old time in the Soviet Union - then it is a wrongful abuse of religious people !!!! I do NOT aprove on that ......

:)

[lightgigantic]

Well , that actually depend of how they act - I mean if they only want to correct delusional thoughts and behaviour by talking with the religious people , then it is OK ....

If they start locking up religious people in locked psyciatric ward like the communists did in old the Soviet Union - then it is a wrongful abuse of religious people !!!! I do NOT aprove on that ......

:)


Actually the article refers to a very subtle form of abuse - I am not sure if you have picked up on it yet

[philosopher´s stone]

Actually the article refers to a very subtle form of abuse - I am not sure if you have picked up on it yet

Thank you for pointing that out - and not attacking me personally !!!
You are improving in your communication ......

There was talk of physical , financial and sexual abuse in your quote though !!!

I do not think the atheists have an infallible leader, totally subordinate people following them , coercion through fear , or interpreting scripture into suiting institutional agendas , nor having unrealistic expectations or premature transcendence !!!!!!!!!!

:)

[geeser]

Actually its common to experience the same "techniques" of abuse at the hands of atheists out to "convert" the massesand where in the world do you see a group of atheist, preaching on the street corners, etc.
and where can I find a gathering place like a hall or dare I say, an atheist church.

talk sense man or shut up.

[Baron Max]

Of course, religions are all manmade used to control people. The article reflects that.

That may be what the article says, but I don't think that it's necessarily true. For one thing, I'm of the opinion that people just like to be around, to be with, people who think and feel as they do ...it's a natural trait of animals the world over. Church helps people do that ...and people like it. And if they like it, who is to say that it's somehow wrong?

If a bunch of fishermen gather to talk about fishing, is that wrong? If a bunch of farmers gather to talk about farming, is that somehow wrong? If a bunch of drug addicts gather to talk and shoot up drugs, other than it being illegal to shoot up drugs, is it wrong for them to wnat to be with like-minded people? No, I don't think so.

If some people want to believe in god, why is that so wrong to y'all? If I want to believe in little green men on Mars, why would you be against it?

And please remember, don't make the mistake of making erroneous connections between religions, churches, etc with criminal activity. The two are completely separate issues!

Baron Max

[philosopher´s stone]

That may be what the article says, but I don't think that it's necessarily true. For one thing, I'm of the opinion that people just like to be around, to be with, people who think and feel as they do ...it's a natural trait of animals the world over. Church helps people do that ...and people like it. And if they like it, who is to say that it's somehow wrong?

If a bunch of fishermen gather to talk about fishing, is that wrong? If a bunch of farmers gather to talk about farming, is that somehow wrong? If a bunch of drug addicts gather to talk and shoot up drugs, other than it being illegal to shoot up drugs, is it wrong for them to wnat to be with like-minded people? No, I don't think so.

If some people want to believe in god, why is that so wrong to y'all? If I want to believe in little green men on Mars, why would you be against it?

And please remember, don't make the mistake of making erroneous connections between religions, churches, etc with criminal activity. The two are completely separate issues!

Baron Max

You are absolutely right , Baron Max !!!!

Only a small percentage of religious people are criminals - and most of them enjoy the company of people thinking like themselves .....

Unfortunately, this post is about spiritual abuse ....
So we have to investigate the darker sides of religion - very sad , but this is the topic of the thread !!!!!!!

[Cris]

Light,

Given that there is no factual authority that one can refer to validate a spiritual concept, i.e. spirituality is entirely emotionally derived by each participating individual, then spiritual abuse is nothing more than one person or group claiming their fantasy is superior to that of someone else. That someone might feel upset is of course entirely their own problem and which can be easily solved by choosing an alternative fantasy. Again without any factual reference any spiritual fantasy is as valid as any other.

[(Q)]

If a bunch of fishermen gather to talk about fishing, is that wrong? If a bunch of farmers gather to talk about farming, is that somehow wrong? If a bunch of drug addicts gather to talk and shoot up drugs, other than it being illegal to shoot up drugs, is it wrong for them to wnat to be with like-minded people? No, I don't think so.

If some people want to believe in god, why is that so wrong to y'all? If I want to believe in little green men on Mars, why would you be against it?

The problem is when those people who take their god delusions as reality get into power and make decisions based on their religious beliefs that affect us all. That is a serious problem.

If it was just people sitting around chatting about their fantasies, I'd have no problem with that, they can fill their boots.

Of course, if you were the mayor of my town and believed in little green men from Mars, I might not vote for you next term. ;)

[KennyJC]

The problem is when those people who take their god delusions as reality get into power and make decisions based on their religious beliefs that affect us all. That is a serious problem.

If it was just people sitting around chatting about their fantasies, I'd have no problem with that, they can fill their boots.

Of course, if you were the mayor of my town and believed in little green men from Mars, I might not vote for you next term. ;)

Which is why religion is such a contentious issue. Astrology, for example, is benign, so we just laugh at it... Religion is something that would be laughed at in the same way if it didn't have such political power and strong tendencies towards conflicts and war.

[(Q)]

Which is why religion is such a contentious issue. Astrology, for example, is benign, so we just laugh at it... Religion is something that would be laughed at in the same way if it didn't have such political power and strong tendencies towards conflicts and war.

Exactly, and many of the people who have god delusions laugh at those who believe in astrology.

[Betelnut]

If anyone has seen promos or ads for the movie "Jesus Camp" I think you've seen "spiritual abuse." The children in the film are being brainwashed, harangued and terrified by adults--all in the name of religion.

Looks like abuse to me.

[baumgarten]

Exactly, and many of the people who have god delusions laugh at those who believe in astrology.
Yeah. I think we're all guilty to some degree of being black pots. No one wants to admit his irrational side nowadays, but anyone is all too eager to point out everyone else's. That's dangerous, unfortunately, as not only is it a rather skewed view of reality, but it encourages communities to draw lines between each other, each with its own particular claim to superiority. This is the type of schism that starts wars, and we have schisms aplenty in the world currently.

This kind of abuse is also abuse of the self. Illogical fantasies are a fact of life. We're people; we have them. Sometimes we try to deny them, act like since we are scientists and philosophers we no longer have a need for such primitive modes of thought. So we repress our irrationalities, ignore them. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away, though; and in a sense, we lose some control over ourselves by surrendering these irrationalities to more automatic areas of the mind. You can become a fanatic without knowing it, in fact believing the opposite. We are blinded from our fanaticism by our fanaticism. Every suicide bomber who wasted his life and the lives of his victims in a senseless moment of violence believed himself to be truly justified in his actions. None could see the absurdity of what they were doing.

It's a shame. Good religious belief is supposed to be in spite of lack of supporting evidence, not in denial of it. Those of us who do not call ourselves religious can benefit from this lesson as well. When we fail the test of intellectual humility, we do worse than make fools of ourselves. We make headlines. Eventually our antics will be caught on tape, made into a documentary, and shown in theaters worldwide, exposing our dramatic folly to a disapproving world.

[Godless]

Good article LG.

Only a small percentage of religious people are criminals

That's not entirely accurate there my friend. Being that only a very small percentage of any given population is atheistic, secular or humanistic. In jail most people there are religious! ;) Don't forget your pedophile preasts either!


From the article:
Abuse can occur in any authority structure or wherever there is an assumption of authority

There LightG! that should answer your queries, any structure where there's an authorative leadership is subseptible to spiritual abuse. An attack on one's ego, for example can be considered a spiritual abuse, wether that person's beliefs may be secular or theistic does not really matter. Abuse takes place in many sircumstances in life, it all depends on how one deals with such behavior. The weaker minded individuals are more subseptible to just "take it" and then suffer the consequences of their choices. The "alpha male" for example would defend themselves on these kinds of abuse. A stronger minded, and confident person is less likely to be abused in this manner.

Godless

[lightgigantic]

Godless

Actually the article is about inappropriate authority - it is not saying that authority is inappropriate - you can argue if you want that authority is not intrinsic to society but I doubt if anyone here is prepared to live outside of society, no matter how much of an alpha male they might think they are

[lightgigantic]

and where in the world do you see a group of atheist, preaching on the street corners, etc.
and where can I find a gathering place like a hall or dare I say, an atheist church.

talk sense man or shut up.

Are you saying atheists don't congregate? At the very least they seem to congregate on religious threads
:D

[lightgigantic]

philosopher´s stone

Thank you for pointing that out - and not attacking me personally !!!
You are improving in your communication ......

There was talk of physical , financial and sexual abuse in your quote though !!!

and if you read the context of the quote you could determine that the article is talking about something more subtle than that

I do not think the atheists have an infallible leader, totally subordinate people following them , coercion through fear , or interpreting scripture into suiting institutional agendas , nor having unrealistic expectations or premature transcendence !!!!!!!!!!

They do tend to deify persons like dawkins, and statements of such persons are lapped up by a congregation, and there are numerous quotes on threads like this that are maliciously directed at persons who dare to not be atheist (and this is a religious thread), and there are interpretations of science or other bodies of evidence to suit atheist ends, etc etc -

[lightgigantic]

(Q)

The problem is when those people who take their god delusions as reality get into power and make decisions based on their religious beliefs that affect us all. That is a serious problem.
If they are deluded yes - of course being an atheist you give yourself the liberal status of not being deluded when you make such statements about how god = delusion

If it was just people sitting around chatting about their fantasies, I'd have no problem with that, they can fill their boots.

Of course, if you were the mayor of my town and believed in little green men from Mars, I might not vote for you next term. ;)
therefore you see that serious religious advocates don't share such views

[lightgigantic]

Which is why religion is such a contentious issue. Astrology, for example, is benign, so we just laugh at it... Religion is something that would be laughed at in the same way if it didn't have such political power and strong tendencies towards conflicts and war.
The old war argument huh - are you also equally worried about economic development too
:p

[lightgigantic]

If anyone has seen promos or ads for the movie "Jesus Camp" I think you've seen "spiritual abuse." The children in the film are being brainwashed, harangued and terrified by adults--all in the name of religion.

Looks like abuse to me.
actually this article talks about the phenomena of abuse that is a bit more subtle than that

[lightgigantic]

Yeah. I think we're all guilty to some degree of being black pots. No one wants to admit his irrational side nowadays, but anyone is all too eager to point out everyone else's. That's dangerous, unfortunately, as not only is it a rather skewed view of reality, but it encourages communities to draw lines between each other, each with its own particular claim to superiority. This is the type of schism that starts wars, and we have schisms aplenty in the world currently.

This kind of abuse is also abuse of the self. Illogical fantasies are a fact of life. We're people; we have them. Sometimes we try to deny them, act like since we are scientists and philosophers we no longer have a need for such primitive modes of thought. So we repress our irrationalities, ignore them. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away, though; and in a sense, we lose some control over ourselves by surrendering these irrationalities to more automatic areas of the mind. You can become a fanatic without knowing it, in fact believing the opposite. We are blinded from our fanaticism by our fanaticism. Every suicide bomber who wasted his life and the lives of his victims in a senseless moment of violence believed himself to be truly justified in his actions. None could see the absurdity of what they were doing.

It's a shame. Good religious belief is supposed to be in spite of lack of supporting evidence, not in denial of it. Those of us who do not call ourselves religious can benefit from this lesson as well. When we fail the test of intellectual humility, we do worse than make fools of ourselves. We make headlines. Eventually our antics will be caught on tape, made into a documentary, and shown in theaters worldwide, exposing our dramatic folly to a disapproving world.

Unfortunately I don't think the people here will be able to appreciate what you have written - I can gather already that the moment they saw the title they thought they already worked it out without bothering to read the thread

[Godless]

Actually the article is about inappropriate authority - it is not saying that authority is inappropriate - you can argue if you want that authority is not intrinsic to society but I doubt if anyone here is prepared to live outside of society, no matter how much of an alpha male they might think they are

How desapointing indeed, and you were doing so good! You obviously didn't understand a thing I wrote!

Abuse takes place in many sircumstances in life, it all depends on how one deals with such behavior. The weaker minded individuals are more subseptible to just "take it" and then suffer the consequences of their choices. The "alpha male" for example would defend themselves on these kinds of abuse.

I understood the artigle LG, don't act as if you are the only one who understand anything, obviously you don't! Authority is abused by jackass' who think they can manipulate other people, it just so happens, that those people easily manipulated by these assholes, are weak minded, easier to manipulate, alpha males exist wether they be theists or atheists, what the hell do you think that preacher abusing his authority is? He/she is the alpha ego, who knows he can abuse his/her authority!

[SnakeLord]

If a bunch of fishermen gather to talk about fishing, is that wrong? If a bunch of farmers gather to talk about farming, is that somehow wrong? If a bunch of drug addicts gather to talk and shoot up drugs, other than it being illegal to shoot up drugs, is it wrong for them to wnat to be with like-minded people? No, I don't think so.

It's not wrong as long as the fishermen don't try and force you to become a fisherman while telling you any other hobby you might have is wrong. It's not wrong as long as the farmers don't try and force you to become a farmer while telling you any other profession is wrong. It's not wrong as long as the junkies don't try and force you to become a junkie while telling you being clean is wrong.


If some people want to believe in god, why is that so wrong to y'all?

See above. It is not about people wanting to believe something as being wrong - hell, you can believe in anything you want and it's fine. It's when it is forced upon everyone, especially young innocent children - which is done daily the world over. An interesting observation but what is one of the very first things a new parent does? Yep, they go and register the birth of their child. What astounds me is how the question: "what religion are they" can be asked during registration of birth. How would the parents know what religion or lack thereof their child is going to be before it's even old enough to drool?

How many parents here think they have the right to decide what beliefs their child will or will not have before it's barely a week old?

Look at your own birth certificate. Were your parents also rude and ignorant enough to think they had the right to decide what you would believe?

That's where it's wrong.

[Baron Max]

It's not wrong as long as the fishermen don't try and force you to become a fisherman while telling you any other hobby you might have is wrong.

How does anyone force anyone to do such things? I don't understand? Are you saying or implying that the churches forced people to become members, then force them to value the church ideals? If so, how? And just what church(es) does that in the free world??

It's when it is forced upon everyone, especially young innocent children - which is done daily the world over.

The church doesn't do that! I've never heard of a church that forced it's members to join, then forced them to remain members .....do you? If so, which ones?

And as to the parents, don't they "force" their children to do lots of things? Or would you have the children collected at birht and raised in accordance with YOUR beliefs and values? Please explain your basic position in this matter.

Would you have the children locked away in isolation until they were old enough to make up their own minds about what they wanted?

I don't get your hostility towards the churches, but even moreso, I don't get your ideals on the matter of child-rearing. Please explain.

Baron Max

[baumgarten]

See above. It is not about people wanting to believe something as being wrong - hell, you can believe in anything you want and it's fine. It's when it is forced upon everyone, especially young innocent children - which is done daily the world over. An interesting observation but what is one of the very first things a new parent does? Yep, they go and register the birth of their child. What astounds me is how the question: "what religion are they" can be asked during registration of birth. How would the parents know what religion or lack thereof their child is going to be before it's even old enough to drool?

How many parents here think they have the right to decide what beliefs their child will or will not have before it's barely a week old?

Look at your own birth certificate. Were your parents also rude and ignorant enough to think they had the right to decide what you would believe?

That's where it's wrong.
Imagine you are born to a tribesman and a tribeswoman of the Alan tribe. Everybody in the Alan tribe lives together, works together, and worships the tribal god, Alan. There are neighboring tribes living close by: Betty, Charlie, and Daniel. All the Betties, Charlies, and Daniels work and live in their respective tribes. The Betties worship Betty, the Charlies worship Charlie, and the Daniels worship Daniel. They all have distinctly different traditions and customs.

Your parents consider themselves to be pretty forward-thinking, so they never teach you about the tribal god or what it means to be an Alan. They recognize the existence of these neighboring tribes and believe that it would be unfair to indoctrinate you into the Alan way of life when you otherwise might prefer to be a Betty, Charlie, or Daniel. So they do not teach you the ritual Alan food blessing or the significance of the Alan holidays. When you are old enough to make decisions for yourself, you can learn.

At the yearly Feast of Alan, you sit down at the long communal table and puzzle at the odd behavior of those around you, speaking strange words to themselves and making irregular hand motions. Some of those sitting near you look at you funny for not joining in. You sense disapproval. You are right; after dinner, a group of kids makes fun of you for not praying. They call you a devil. They look down on you and pick on you. You ask your parents why the other children are so mean to you; they tell you that their beliefs cause them to be intolerant of different people.

Different people. Like you. You don't really belong with the Alans. You don't understand them, they don't understand you, and neither of you like the other. Your parents were successful; you are not an Alan, or a Betty, or a Charlie, or a Daniel. You are a child without a country. And it makes you feel very alone in the world. That all-important sense of belonging felt by your peers is absent in you. You feel unwanted by the world. You respond by rejecting it in kind. You don't trust anyone. Your life is miserable.

So, were your parents right?

[KennyJC]

Last time I checked we didn't live in tribes.

[baumgarten]

Last time I checked we didn't live in tribes.
Really? I wasn't aware.

[KennyJC]

So what relevance is this to forced religious indoctrination in modern society?

[baumgarten]

It has a lot of relevance. The only thing that has changed about our tribes is locality. We still classify ourselves into groups and identify ourselves with them: Christian, Muslim, Jewish; American, Egyptian, Chinese; Democrat, Republican, Libertarian; religious, secular. These categories tell us about ourselves and our kin. In our multicultural society we seek out others like us and form communities. No man is an island.

Children still need that sense of belonging. They still need to be taught a way of life. I obviously know my own way of life best, and I know it is a good way. Naturally I would be more inclined to teach them my way instead of someone else's. It's my job as a parent to help my kid become a good person, and this means instilling some core values and beliefs. This is not rude or ignorant, it is being a good parent. It's how culture works. If my kid grows up in white suburban America and I don't expose him to baseball and hot dogs, what kind of a dad am I?

[KennyJC]

Children still need that sense of belonging. They still need to be taught a way of life.

All of which can be achieved without force feeding them superstitious bullshit that they are too young to reject.

Oh and Baron_Max: The church does in fact force people into their institution. They surely can not expect babies, infants and children to have any free will in taking part in confirmation, baptism, confessing sins and other such stupidities.

Sort of funny considering half the citizens in my country grow up to be non-religious or atheists, yet in childhood, they are forced to take part in it. Violating the naivety of children to further their cult... It's pathetic, and the only thing that comes of it is fighting between opposite sides of the city who are divided between catholicism and protestantism.

[baumgarten]

All of which can be achieved without force feeding them superstitious bullshit that they are too young to reject.
Should we instead suppress the irrational nature of the human psyche? We have seen what kind of fanaticism that causes.

The truth is, you can only pretend to be governed purely by reason. It's actually bullshit. You're an animal. You're an irrational, emotional, instinctual, intuitive creature. You can ignore this part of you, but you will simply lose consciousness of it, and it will continue to influence your behavior without your being aware of it. The belief that you aren't superstitious or unreasonable is as much a fantasy as some delusion of a god. Really, the only thing that makes your bullshit favorable to other religious bullshit is that it's yours. As long as you don't make an effort to understand the latter, though, you can't be expected to tolerate it. Your opinion of other cultures is actually a prime example of this so-called spiritual abuse.

Not to pick on you, though, the churches around you do the same thing by your accounts. It must be a frustrating situation, where everyone is picking a team and arbitrarily competing with the others. Welcome to the world.

[SnakeLord]

How does anyone force anyone to do such things? I don't understand? Are you saying or implying that the churches forced people to become members, then force them to value the church ideals? If so, how? And just what church(es) does that in the free world??

Firstly please note that I didn't use the word 'church' once. A church is largely a gathering place for people that have already been indoctrinated. I'm talking parents, lousy education systems.

How many young children are forced to go to church/synagogue etc?

One of my nieces aunts has been doing it for years with my niece. Dragging her to church to eat weird food and get involved in strange ritualistic crap and the girl was only 4 years old..

"This is what you are, this is what you will believe"

At my daughters school, (which isn't a religious school), they got all the kids to stand up in assembly and say "dear god, thank you for looking after us". They consider that as curriculum and yet they didn't have the decency to ask the kids if they believed such things. Nope, they just forced it down their mouths without the right to do so.

The church doesn't do that! I've never heard of a church that forced it's members to join, then forced them to remain members .....do you? If so, which ones?

Firstly please note that I didn't use the word church once. I was by and large referring to parents and lousy education systems.

And as to the parents, don't they "force" their children to do lots of things? Or would you have the children collected at birht and raised in accordance with YOUR beliefs and values? Please explain your basic position in this matter.

Instructing your child not to stick his fingers in the plug socket, or forcing him to go to school to get an education is nothing like forcing your child to believe in leprechauns simply because you do.

Would you have the children locked away in isolation until they were old enough to make up their own minds about what they wanted?

Locked away? Where does that come from?

I don't get your hostility towards the churches

Me neither considering I didn't use the word church once. Wakey wakey.

but even moreso, I don't get your ideals on the matter of child-rearing.

You don't "get my ideals"? What are you telling me, you think parents do have the right to decide what their children will or will not believe in?

Different people. Like you. You don't really belong with the Alans. You don't understand them, they don't understand you, and neither of you like the other. Your parents were successful; you are not an Alan, or a Betty, or a Charlie, or a Daniel. You are a child without a country. And it makes you feel very alone in the world. That all-important sense of belonging felt by your peers is absent in you. You feel unwanted by the world. You respond by rejecting it in kind. You don't trust anyone. Your life is miserable.

So, were your parents right?

So a parent should force belief on their children just so they get along and agree with other people of the same belief, (while invariably then, given your rather silly analogy, not getting along with everyone of a different tribe - and thus still having a miserable life apparently)?

You actually made me laugh. Your entire analogy boils down to forcing a child to believe in what you do otherwise he'll have no friends. It's pure and utter dog testicle.

[baumgarten]

So a parent should force belief on their children just so they get along and agree with other people of the same belief, (while invariably then, given your rather silly analogy, not getting along with everyone of a different tribe - and thus still having a miserable life apparently)?
You're going to force some kind of belief anyway. In this example case, the belief that you have no place in the world was effectively forced on you. Better to allow your child to function in society than to alienate him from the social group. That was a matter of survival in the past; today it is a matter of mental health.

You actually made me laugh. Your entire analogy boils down to forcing a child to believe in what you do otherwise he'll have no friends. It's pure and utter dog testicle.
You take the prospect of loneliness very lightly. Having no friends as a child can cause serious, lifelong problems. Come adolescence, we begin to think critically about our own beliefs anyway as we try to establish our identities as individuals. However, the depression caused by the feeling of not belonging anywhere can place a child in a state of arrested development, so that he never reaches this stage.

[baumgarten]

Unfortunately I don't think the people here will be able to appreciate what you have written - I can gather already that the moment they saw the title they thought they already worked it out without bothering to read the thread
I am beginning to think you're right.

[KennyJC]

Should we instead suppress the irrational nature of the human psyche? We have seen what kind of fanaticism that causes.

We have slowly been supressing the superstitious irrational side of our psyche for hundreds of years. Can you imagine what we would be like if not for the age of science and reason? By the way, what kind of fanaticism are you referring to? Fascist dictatorships? What does this have to do with a democratic secular society like the one seen in western Europe, Austrailia or Japan?

The truth is, you can only pretend to be governed purely by reason. It's actually bullshit. You're an animal. You're an irrational, emotional, instinctual, intuitive creature. You can ignore this part of you, but you will simply lose consciousness of it, and it will continue to influence your behavior without your being aware of it. The belief that you aren't superstitious or unreasonable is as much a fantasy as some delusion of a god. Really, the only thing that makes your bullshit favorable to other religious bullshit is that it's yours. As long as you don't make an effort to understand the latter, though, you can't be expected to tolerate it. Your opinion of other cultures is actually a prime example of this so-called spiritual abuse.

Saying religion and secularism are both bullshit in equal measures is basically a non-answer. Organised religion is clearly false and a superstition. Bearing this in mind, do you think it's right for state schools to force children into going to church, confessing sins to priests, praising deities in song, forcing them to read the bible, tell them stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark as though historic fact... especially since most will grow up with secular principles and some to resent religion as it was forced on them at an assuming age? If someone who had a secular education feels obliged to be religious, guess what... They are free to do so! They were not free to do so when it was forced on them however.


I am beginning to think you're right.

That would be a first...

[baumgarten]

We have slowly been supressing the superstitious irrational side of our psyche for hundreds of years. Can you imagine what we would be like if not for the age of science and reason? By the way, what kind of fanaticism are you referring to? Fascist dictatorships? What does this have to do with a democratic secular society like the one seen in western Europe, Austrailia or Japan?
People have always studied human behavior, but as science and reason have prevailed, our awareness of our own irrationality has actually increased. Psychologists take our unconscious and irrational processes into account when they study the human mind rather than ignore them.

Saying religion and secularism are both bullshit in equal measures is basically a non-answer. Organised religion is clearly false and a superstition. Bearing this in mind, do you think it's right for state schools to force children into going to church, confessing sins to priests, praising deities in song, forcing them to read the bible, tell them stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark as though historic fact... especially since most will grow up with secular principles and some to resent religion as it was forced on them at an assuming age? If someone who had a secular education feels obliged to be religious, guess what... They are free to do so! They were not free to do so when it was forced on them however.
I believe in the concept of a secular government and freedom of religion. I don't think that, in today's world, where societies are so diverse, you can successfully enforce a state religion. I additionally think it is ethically better to allow one to freely express his thoughts about religion or anything else. I have not been thinking of those political issues, though.

By fanaticism, I mean a kind of self-reassuring philosophical hubris. If you hold that your beliefs prevent you from drawing superstitions, you won't be aware of it when you do. If you suppress your irrational processes, then you'll be too busy ignoring them to learn from them -- or, more importantly, to recognize their irrationality when they motivate you to do something unreasonable. If you feel you have removed yourself from these things, then you won't take into account their effects on your thought processes, and you will feel undeniably justified in everything you do, even if retrospect reveals an action to be ridiculous to the extreme. This is the same general mindset that, employed collectively, gives such a strong feeling of empowerment and can enable normal human beings to commit horrible atrocities. Think of the rabid fervor that swept through Nazi Germany, and the similar phenomena in the Bible Belt and the Middle East today.

Even if we forget what we are, I don't think today's prevalent secular philosophies could ever lead to something like the Holocaust or the Salem witch trials. But it is still unhealthy, and it does foster a nasty tendency not only to be unable to understand people who think differently, but to not want to anyway. When one feels one is right and everyone else is wrong, it's too easy to villify everyone else.

[SnakeLord]

In this example case, the belief that you have no place in the world was effectively forced on you.

Kindly show me how not being forced to believe in a specific being results in belief that "you have no place in the world"?

Better to allow your child to function in society than to alienate him from the social group.

How does not forcing your child into belief of a specific deity before he's old enough to even understand the word deity mean he's not being allowed to function in society or that he's being alienated?

You take the prospect of loneliness very lightly. Having no friends as a child can cause serious, lifelong problems.

Being a doctor I know of many many problems that can stem from not having friends. Now you need to show me how not forcing belief in a god down your childs throat ends up with that child having no friends. Please, I await with bated breath.

Come adolescence, we begin to think critically about our own beliefs anyway as we try to establish our identities as individuals. However, the depression caused by the feeling of not belonging anywhere can place a child in a state of arrested development, so that he never reaches this stage.

You're talking gibberish.

How does not forcing belief down a child's throat result in depression, arrested development, no friends or any of the other pile of horse manure you've come out with?

[Jaster Mereel]

Kindly show me how not being forced to believe in a specific being results in belief that "you have no place in the world"?



How does not forcing your child into belief of a specific deity before he's old enough to even understand the word deity mean he's not being allowed to function in society or that he's being alienated?



Being a doctor I know of many many problems that can stem from not having friends. Now you need to show me how not forcing belief in a god down your childs throat ends up with that child having no friends. Please, I await with bated breath.



You're talking gibberish.

How does not forcing belief down a child's throat result in depression, arrested development, no friends or any of the other pile of horse manure you've come out with?

He's talking about human societies in general. If you live in a small town in the American "bible belt", and everyone in your town goes to Church every Sunday, sings hymns to Jesus, talks about Jesus all the time, plays on the sports team funded by the church, etc... and you don't believe in Jesus, you don't believe in God, and you are open about it, do you honestly think you're going to have any friends as a child?

[baumgarten]

SnakeLord: Gee, I don't detect any sarcasm in that post at all. Why should I even try to better explain myself when all I'll get back is an attitude? You don't even appear to be attempting to understand me.

[Bowser]

Religion is a binding force, powerful and consolidating. It is an idea, or a collection of thoughts, that can be used to encourage better behavior within a community. There is no doubt that it also can be abused and its true value subverted by despotic authoritarians. I would say that, rather than religion, assumed authority should always be suspect. It doesn't matter which collection of ideas they are preaching or from which pulpit they speak.

As for the influence of religion within OUR society, its voice is mute when measured against the constant stream of ideas that are pumped through the television within your home. That box has more influence on Western Thought than any religion, and I suspect that much of what we read here regarding the abuse of religious intolerance and impropriety is mostly regurgitation from what has been consumed during many hours of worship.

Someone mentioned here that children are forced into religious doctrine at a very young age. I would point to a more dangerous cult that is more insidious than any religion. Try discarding your television.

[Jaster Mereel]

Religion is a binding force, powerful and consolidating. It is an idea, or a collection of thoughts, that can be used to encourage better behavior within a community. There is no doubt that it also can be abused and its true value subverted by despotic authoritarians. I would say that, rather than religion, assumed authority should always be suspect. It doesn't matter which collection of ideas they are preaching or from which pulpit they speak.

As for the influence of religion within OUR society, its voice is mute when measured against the constant stream of ideas that are pumped through the television within your home. That box has more influence on Western Thought than any religion, and I suspect that much of what we read here regarding the abuse of religious intolerance and impropriety is mostly regurgitation from what has been consumed during many hours of worship.

Someone mentioned here that children are forced into religious doctrine at a very young age. I would point to a more dangerous cult that is more insidious than any religion. Try discarding your television.

Amen. Now I'm off to watch the box...

[lightgigantic]

How desapointing indeed, and you were doing so good! You obviously didn't understand a thing I wrote!



I understood the artigle LG, don't act as if you are the only one who understand anything, obviously you don't! Authority is abused by jackass' who think they can manipulate other people, it just so happens, that those people easily manipulated by these assholes, are weak minded, easier to manipulate, alpha males exist wether they be theists or atheists, what the hell do you think that preacher abusing his authority is? He/she is the alpha ego, who knows he can abuse his/her authority!

The point is that even if you want to advocate that we should dimiinish all authority (which I am not even sure you are advocating - I am just assuming that because you are ofering nothing but the derision of authority) you can only do so by giving yourself an authority - inother words on what authority should we accept your authority?
:eek:

[lightgigantic]

Last time I checked we didn't live in tribes.

maybe we are not sufficiently civilised to be termed as "tribes"
:D

[lightgigantic]

SnakeLord: Gee, I don't detect any sarcasm in that post at all. Why should I even try to better explain myself when all I'll get back is an attitude? You don't even appear to be attempting to understand me.

Thats why I put him on my Ignore List too
;)

The only diference is that it only took you a few posts to reach such a conclusion

[lightgigantic]

Religion is a binding force, powerful and consolidating. It is an idea, or a collection of thoughts, that can be used to encourage better behavior within a community. There is no doubt that it also can be abused and its true value subverted by despotic authoritarians. I would say that, rather than religion, assumed authority should always be suspect. It doesn't matter which collection of ideas they are preaching or from which pulpit they speak.

As for the influence of religion within OUR society, its voice is mute when measured against the constant stream of ideas that are pumped through the television within your home. That box has more influence on Western Thought than any religion, and I suspect that much of what we read here regarding the abuse of religious intolerance and impropriety is mostly regurgitation from what has been consumed during many hours of worship.

Someone mentioned here that children are forced into religious doctrine at a very young age. I would point to a more dangerous cult that is more insidious than any religion. Try discarding your television.

Therefore there is the notion that the rituals and paraphernalia or worship automatically manifest when people or groups of people perceive something greater than oneself - its not uncommon for sociologists to define our attitude to popular culture in a religious fashion - which has in turn led to the belief you advocate - that actual religion is nothing more than a phenomena of popular culture - there is of course the counter argument that actual religion is something more than the carbon copy we experience as popular culture, technology etc

[SnakeLord]

He's talking about human societies in general. If you live in a small town in the American "bible belt", and everyone in your town goes to Church every Sunday, sings hymns to Jesus, talks about Jesus all the time, plays on the sports team funded by the church, etc... and you don't believe in Jesus, you don't believe in God, and you are open about it, do you honestly think you're going to have any friends as a child?

How is some small twilight zone town out in the middle of freaksville "human society in general"? What you're going to end up with in a general society where there is a vast mix of differing beliefs etc is the child forced with the belief being lonely/outcast etc.

The side effect of belief in a god/s is that everyone who thinks differently is wrong - which causes division. It's like the jewish people in Golders Green.. all the kids walking round with their skullcaps - almost being spat upon by everyone else - and only because their parents forced belief in a specific deity and specific religious customs, (god for some reason doesn't want to look at the top of their heads), before they were old enough to understand or question any of it.

SnakeLord: Gee, I don't detect any sarcasm in that post at all

Good, because there wasn't any.

Why should I even try to better explain myself when all I'll get back is an attitude?

Weak excuse. I called you on your rather silly statements and so you play the defensive, blame me and do a runner. Typical.

You told me that children that don't have religion forced upon them end up having no friends. I've called you on it. Take responsibility for your own statements.

Someone mentioned here that children are forced into religious doctrine at a very young age. I would point to a more dangerous cult that is more insidious than any religion. Try discarding your television.

Although it probably differs from place to place, here we have access to what.. 1000 tv channels. You can find a channel for all different beliefs, ideals, hobbies, etc etc etc without any single one of them being forced upon you. Your comparison doesn't work. If perhaps your parents sat you down and forced you to watch one channel and one channel only - every other channel being evil and wrong, then I would agree with you completely. Given the "choice" you have with concerns to TV, it is absolutely nothing like the "choice" that children who have a specific god forced upon them don't have.

And to light, not that he/she/it can see this: No. You put me on ignore because I asked you a question you could not answer.

[KennyJC]

And to light, not that he/she/it can see this: No. You put me on ignore because I asked you a question you could not answer.

Adding people to ignore is the get-out clause for the theist. I've seen many atheists be downright rude to theists who are known for putting people on ignore, yet in these occassions they don't put them on ignore, because they have an easy comeback to those who are blatantly rude. However, when the atheist has a valid point which the theist has no answer, they will often seek out any sarcasm as an excuse to ignore them. It's just a way to save face going by the way they continually boast about putting certain people on ignore as it is a way to instantly dismiss everything xxx person has said.

For example in a typical God-hates-gays thread, I was put on ignore for suggesting that God hates left handed people too. It's just interesting that in the religion forum, t'is the theists who typically put the atheists on ignore, and not the other way around. I think this is a clear demonstration of how frustrating it can be arguing a cause that there is no evidence for.

[Godless]

The point is that even if you want to advocate that we should dimiinish all authority (which I am not even sure you are advocating - I am just assuming that because you are ofering nothing but the derision of authority)

Litghtee not sure? Man you need reading comprehesion skills. I'm not advocating of diminishing an authorative figure, only and only in the case, were a victim is abused! Damn dood get it straight!. We are talking about abuse here riiiiighhht? If you are in a cituation where an authorative figure is abusing you, however slight that may be, hurting your ego, or a child's behind that you know of, would you let the abuse continue?, or call the law's authoraty to put the pervert in jail?

[Jaster Mereel]

How is some small twilight zone town out in the middle of freaksville "human society in general"? What you're going to end up with in a general society where there is a vast mix of differing beliefs etc is the child forced with the belief being lonely/outcast etc.
Haven't you ever read a history book? Until a little while ago, this type of community was human society in general. Melting pots are not the norm. A huge mixture of cultures and ideas is not the norm. This idea that you have that a huge, secular, multicultural society is an example of a normal human community shows your utter lack of a broader historical perspective.

The side effect of belief in a god/s is that everyone who thinks differently is wrong - which causes division. It's like the jewish people in Golders Green.. all the kids walking round with their skullcaps - almost being spat upon by everyone else - and only because their parents forced belief in a specific deity and specific religious customs, (god for some reason doesn't want to look at the top of their heads), before they were old enough to understand or question any of it.
Once again, you're talking about a huge, multicultural society filled with people's of different faiths and customs. One again, you have to realize that this is not the normal way for human communities to exist. For the vast majority of human history, the type of community I describe in my previous post was just about the only kind of community to live in, with a few notable exceptions.

Weak excuse. I called you on your rather silly statements and so you play the defensive, blame me and do a runner. Typical.
Actually, his statements weren't typical at all. You don't seem to be trying to understand what he's saying in his analysis, which is quite well thought out and very articulate. I don't even think you've been reading it.

You told me that children that don't have religion forced upon them end up having no friends. I've called you on it. Take responsibility for your own statements.
No, he's telling you that children who grow up without any kind of cultural knowledge end up having no friends, which includes religion, since it's such a huge part of most people's lives. As I said when describing the community above, if you're the only one in the village that doesn't believe in God, and who doesn't understand the appropriate rituals, then you're almost definitely going to have few friends. If you've ever read anything about human society throughout history, you'd know that the description I gave is a fairly accurate depiction of life throughout most of the world throughout most time periods.

We're not talking about the right or wrong of social indoctrination, we're only saying that, not only is it normal, but necessary for the individual, in most communities, to survive. Baumgarten has elegantly described the consequences of a lack of social indoctrination, which applies to all societies because human beings think of themselves in terms of the communities they are a part of. What he is saying is that, if you remove one of the most important aspects of social identity from the individual, in most communities it will make them an outcast. Are you disputing this claim as a scientist, or are you (more likely) reacting emotionally to what you see as an endorsement of religious induction which you (as an obviously secular humanistic atheist) find repulsive, even though such an outlook completely ignores the fact that society's smooth functioning is entirely dependant on the level of indoctrination of it's members?

[SnakeLord]

Haven't you ever read a history book?

Well that's indeed a well thought out and mature start to a debate. I thank you for it. To answer your question - yes, I have read many history books but given that my statements, and indeed the statements I responded to originally, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with history, I must say I fail to see the value of the question.

Still, let's look at the rest of your post and see what we can come up with..

A huge mixture of cultures and ideas is not the norm

I disagree.

The vastness of differing beliefs in the UK is a great example - some 33% religiosity comprising of jews, christians, (admittedly the major religion - but also of countless differing denominations), muslims, atheists, hinduism, sikhism, buddhism and hell, even jedi.

Look at the majority of first world nations and you'll find it's pretty similar. Ok, if we travel to the poorer, less educated nations then fine - children that are not indocrtinated young might find they "have no friends", or perhaps even get killed - and I know the same has been true for the majority of "history", but I haven't been talking about some poor, deeply religious nation or some time back when dinosaurs roamed.

In the 33% religious UK it is simply wrong to force feed a specific religious belief to children barely old enough to walk. In any country it is also wrong - but I do understand that some countries are stuck in that position.

History, no friends and whatever else you can think of do not in any way change that statement.

Now, I asked and I still await justification how not force feeding a child a specific religious belief means the child will have no friends, have mental problems and be an outcast. You seem quite hot on what he said so why don't you answer?

Now, you might rebutt with "but the UK is not the 'norm'", but you would be wrong. If you like we can go through the figures, but you will find that a country having a huge mix of cultures and ideas is the norm, (for first world countries).

Irregardless to all of this, I still consider it wrong for a child, (or anyone else for that matter), to be force fed a specific belief. Tell me young Jaster, do you disagree with that statement? Do you, master of history books, consider it right to force feed a specific deity belief to a child, (or anyone else)?

To go back a bit because you might not have read it:

"If a bunch of fishermen gather to talk about fishing, is that wrong?"

That was the question, (among others of similar nature). My answer was that there's nothing wrong with fisherman gathering to talk about fishing as long as they do not force everyone else to fish.

I then got told, (to stick to analogy), that if fishermen don't force kids to fish then those kids will have no friends and end up suicidal. This, to the poster, seemed perfectly justifiable reason, (although the reason has little value in this part of the world), to consider it warranted, and indeed even essential, for parents to force feed specific deity belief to their children.

If you agree with that just say so, but please do not think for one second that asking me whether I've read a book or not is an argument to anything. Of course we could just say "fuck it" and question each others level of education if you'd really like?

"I bet you've never done a chemistry o level"

"yeah well my encyclopedia's bigger than yours"

Could be an interesting argument, no really.

(now you should be detecting sarcasm).

This idea that you have that a huge, secular, multicultural society is an example of a normal human community shows your utter lack of a broader historical perspective.

So much for that idea, seems you can't help yourself. When in doubt in a debate question the other persons education and it somehow magically seems to add weight to what would technically be a quite flimsy argument. Now we can happily debate Genghis Khan, Jefferson, Gandhi or anyone else for as long as you like, but if you're supporting the argument that, (here and now in the UK), a child needs to be force indoctrinated or he wont have any friends then you might as well pull up a seat because you're going to be here a long time. My understanding, or lack thereof, of broader historical perspectives are completely and utterly irrelevant to my statement and what was returned to me. Understand?

Once again, you're talking about a huge, multicultural society filled with people's of different faiths and customs. One again, you have to realize that this is not the normal way for human communities to exist.

I take it you have never been to Europe. For one second try and imagine what the UK is like. I can see it's clearly a hardship for you, but let me just tell you - even though it will sound almost impossible, almost supernatural and fantastical, but we are a multi cultural nation. There are so many differing faiths and cultures here that every day is a new experience. In my very own street I have christians, atheists, jews, buddhists, and muslims - all in one road. Can you even begin to imagine such a thing? It's not normal I tell you, no siree. Why, if it wasn't 2006 I'd pull out that big wooden cross and crucify the fuckers.

But hey, at least you're waking up to what I've been saying. Yes, you're right..

"Once again, you're talking about a huge, multicultural society filled with people's of different faiths and customs"

Yes, I am. Congratulations. Blue Peter badge is in the post.

Actually, his statements weren't typical at all. You don't seem to be trying to understand what he's saying in his analysis, which is quite well thought out and very articulate. I don't even think you've been reading it.

Indeed it was his lack of statement that was typical. I called him on a claim he made, (kids must be indoctrinated or they have no friends). I'm calling you on the very same thing.

Just for your benefit here are the questions again:

"Kindly show me how not being forced to believe in a specific being results in belief that "you have no place in the world"?"

"How does not forcing your child into belief of a specific deity before he's old enough to even understand the word deity mean he's not being allowed to function in society or that he's being alienated?"

"Now you need to show me how not forcing belief in a god down your childs throat ends up with that child having no friends. Please, I await with bated breath."

No, I'm not talking 2000 years ago or some country that is not multicultural.

So, adding me to ignore or what? They're really rude questions, aren't they?

he's telling you that children who grow up without any kind of cultural knowledge end up having no friends, which includes religion, since it's such a huge part of most people's lives.

Ok, right.. Perhaps I should just point out that education and force feeding specific belief are two entirely different things.

Of course, even if we ignore all of that, your friend is still wrong. Let it be stated that your friend, (and the conversation), was not about "any kind" of cultural knowledge, but of force feeding specific religious belief. My wifes sister doesn't know anything of religion, in fact she doesn't know anything of anything. The girl's a bit.. 'slow'. The only thing she actually knows is Arsenal football team and yes - she has friends regardless to her lack of belief in a specific deity or knowledge/belief in a specific religion.

My statement - that I for some reason need to keep repeating, was that it is wrong for a parent/educational system to force feed belief in a specific deity/ in a god, or sheesh, even in a specific football team. Imagine the uproar if every school in London had it as part of their curriculum to force feed worship for Chelsea football club to any child under 3 that crossed their path. While I understand parents/educational systems will do it, I disagree with their right to do so. Ancient history be damned. My argument is that a child should be taught - but left alone to decide what is or isn't right, (to them).

My sister's daughter is a religious whack job, and she's barely 5 years old. It's not because she ever decided, or had a choice, what she would believe - but that it was forced upon her by bad parents. She is now what she is not because she gave it even 3 seconds thought - but because someone told her what she would be, end of story. I'm quite certain she would have friends one way or the other.

If you've ever read anything about human society throughout history, you'd know that the description I gave is a fairly accurate depiction of life throughout most of the world throughout most time periods.

There we go once again with your rather amusing superiority nonsense. Still, my lack of reading books without pop up pictures aside, you really need to visit the UK. Btw, that's UK 2006 just incase you were unsure.

We're not talking about the right or wrong of social indoctrination

We're not? I was, clearly you didn't pick up on that but don't include me in your statement. Thanks.

we're only saying that, not only is it normal, but necessary for the individual, in most communities, to survive.

Fine, show me how a child not force indoctrinated into belief of a specific deity will not survive.

Hello?

Baumgarten has elegantly described the consequences of a lack of social indoctrination

Such a shame though, given all that eloquence and elegant decription that the minute I questioned him on it he ran for the hills. Your turn, oh master of books.

Are you disputing this claim as a scientist, or are you (more likely) reacting emotionally to what you see as an endorsement of religious induction which you (as an obviously secular humanistic atheist) find repulsive

I'm sorry, if you want to use the word 'science', kindly back up the statements that not being forced into a specific belief makes you have no friends and have mental problems.

Being a human, emotions are a given. Your sophisticated (more likely) comment was not needed. Did you perhaps think I was a Borg? However, if you can show how, (in the UK 2006), forced child indoctrination is essential for a child to have friends or, as you claimed, "survive", then please do. No, let's forget 1000 years ago and history books for now. Thank you very much but they're not needed here.


Oh and please, can you stop asking me if I've ever read any books. It's really quite pathetic.

[Jaster Mereel]

Well that's indeed a well thought out and mature start to a debate. I thank you for it. To answer your question - yes, I have read many history books but given that my statements, and indeed the statements I responded to originally, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with history, I must say I fail to see the value of the question.
Rhetorical questions escape you, it seems. You seem to be stuck on this throughout your post. I was actually saying it with the hope that you had read history extensively, so that you could better understand my position. I suppose this was entirely lost upon you.

I disagree. The vastness of differing beliefs in the UK is a great example - some 33% religiosity comprising of jews, christians, (admittedly the major religion - but also of countless differing denominations), muslims, atheists, hinduism, sikhism, buddhism and hell, even jedi. Look at the majority of first world nations and you'll find it's pretty similar. Ok, if we travel to the poorer, less educated nations then fine - children that are not indocrtinated young might find they "have no friends", or perhaps even get killed - and I know the same has been true for the majority of "history", but I haven't been talking about some poor, deeply religious nation or some time back when dinosaurs roamed. In the 33% religious UK it is simply wrong to force feed a specific religious belief to children barely old enough to walk. In any country it is also wrong - but I do understand that some countries are stuck in that position. History, no friends and whatever else you can think of do not in any way change that statement.
Oh really? History is no standard by which to compare the fundamentals of human nature? I guess we should just ignore it, then. This is patently ridiculous. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about all of human history. When you look at it, the vast majority of nations, tribes, villages, as well as any other kind of human community you could possibly imagine, have engaged in social indoctrination. Why? Because it's necessary. Society cannot function unless most of it's members think alike on at least a few levels. I was talking about the nature of humanity reaching back into the darkest depths of time. This is what we are arguing. It's human nature. It's not the actions of a few "evil" people attempting to control the minds of the sheeple around the world. In fact, it's not wrong at all. It's perfectly natural to do this, and the standard by which you are judging it to be evil is no more enlightened or thoughtful than the values of the people you condemn. Why? Because they are all human values. They come from people, and you're condemnation of those values, and of instilling them in young children, is no different or more noble than the condemnation of one group of people by another. Forget about the ultimate truth or falsity of the particular belief of a religion. It's completely irrelevant. You're arguing against religious indoctrination (or so it seems), not against indoctrination of a specific (as in, Christianity, for instance, or Islam) belief system.

Irregardless to all of this, I still consider it wrong for a child, (or anyone else for that matter), to be force fed a specific belief. Tell me young Jaster, do you disagree with that statement? Do you, master of history books, consider it right to force feed a specific deity belief to a child, (or anyone else)?
Honestly, I don't give a damn. What I'm saying is that neither of us made this into a moral issue, and you are forcing it into one. What we are both trying to say is that it's completely normal for social indoctrination to occur, regardless of the subject you are talking about, and that condemning it as wrong is a useless gesture. It's an intrinsic part of what it is to be human. All societies engage in indoctrination of specific belief/value systems, because it's the natural way for human beings to interract with the next generation. What are we to do? Teach children nothing at all? If we consider something to be enormously important to the child's life, then how can we not teach him/her about it? How is that wrong?

To go back a bit because you might not have read it:

"If a bunch of fishermen gather to talk about fishing, is that wrong?"

That was the question, (among others of similar nature). My answer was that there's nothing wrong with fisherman gathering to talk about fishing as long as they do not force everyone else to fish. I then got told, (to stick to analogy), that if fishermen don't force kids to fish then those kids will have no friends and end up suicidal. This, to the poster, seemed perfectly justifiable reason, (although the reason has little value in this part of the world), to consider it warranted, and indeed even essential, for parents to force feed specific deity belief to their children.
It is warranted, and in deeply religious societies it is equally essential. As I said before, if you absolutely believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that your particular religious belief is going to be the most important factor in your child's life, how can you not teach them about it? You see, the flaw in your reasoning here is very simple: You assign no intrinsic value to religious belief of any kind, and consider them simply flights of fanciful imagination (or so it seems). Most people do not feel as you do, and so they do not consider the instilling of (to you) valueless beliefs as immoral in the slightest. On the contrary, they consider it their moral imperative to teach their children about their God/gods, and would consider it the gravest negligence on their part if they did not.

Now we can happily debate Genghis Khan, Jefferson, Gandhi or anyone else for as long as you like, but if you're supporting the argument that, (here and now in the UK), a child needs to be force indoctrinated or he wont have any friends then you might as well pull up a seat because you're going to be here a long time. My understanding, or lack thereof, of broader historical perspectives are completely and utterly irrelevant to my statement and what was returned to me. Understand?
No. Historical perspective is absolutely essential in understanding why people do things. You are making a moral judgment of an activity that is rooted in the very seat of humanity's existence. You are looking at something which has been instilled in every culture around the world for thousands of generations and saying that it is "wrong", simply because you believe that it has no place in the modern world. You say this because you have a particular belief that these particular beliefs which you find disgusting are of little value, and so you can't possibly fathom how any sane, good person could possibly force feed these teachings into the minds of their children. Because you can't understand it, you judge it to be evil, and along with that you judge people who engage in this activity to be either insane, bad, or at best misguided.

Not once did I ever say that here and now it is right for people to do this. I have maintained that assigning a moral judgment to this activity is that which is false, and you continue to act as if I have said that it is right. I have made no moral judgment. I don't care at all, in fact, but you continue to insist that I am saying it is right for people to teach their children to believe in God.

I take it you have never been to Europe. For one second try and imagine what the UK is like. I can see it's clearly a hardship for you, but let me just tell you - even though it will sound almost impossible, almost supernatural and fantastical, but we are a multi cultural nation. There are so many differing faiths and cultures here that every day is a new experience. In my very own street I have christians, atheists, jews, buddhists, and muslims - all in one road. Can you even begin to imagine such a thing? It's not normal I tell you, no siree. Why, if it wasn't 2006 I'd pull out that big wooden cross and crucify the fuckers.

But hey, at least you're waking up to what I've been saying. Yes, you're right..

"Once again, you're talking about a huge, multicultural society filled with people's of different faiths and customs"

Yes, I am. Congratulations. Blue Peter badge is in the post.
Well, then you're talking about a much more narrow subject then either of us. What we are saying is that it is hardwired into people's behavior to indoctrinate their children into religious belief, and that your characterization of it as morally wrong is silly at best.

My statement - that I for some reason need to keep repeating, was that it is wrong for a parent/educational system to force feed belief in a specific deity/ in a god, or sheesh, even in a specific football team. Imagine the uproar if every school in London had it as part of their curriculum to force feed worship for Chelsea football club to any child under 3 that crossed their path. While I understand parents/educational systems will do it, I disagree with their right to do so. Ancient history be damned. My argument is that a child should be taught - but left alone to decide what is or isn't right, (to them).
And my statement, as I for some reason need to keep repeating, is that making moral judgments of a fundamental human activity, one that has always been essential to society's smooth functioning until recently, is a silly path to tread. Ancient history is the reason why people do this. It's been so much a part of culture for so many thousands and thousands of years that there is no other way that people know (without their own kind of indoctrination), and I would even contend that it's still essential. It's essential because pluralism and tolerance are good and all, but a reasonable level of indoctrination is indeed important to society. Imagine if there were no sense of patriotism within your nation. Where does that sense come from? Does it come naturally? No. It comes because parents, and public schooling, and the community at large has taught everyone to think like that. It's a part of the citizen's identity. It's who they are, for heaven's sake. The same goes for religious belief. It's a part of cultural identity. If you remove it, without replacing it with something else, you remove a large part of what makes a person a part of the community that they came from. That's what we were arguing. We weren't talking about the U.K. in 2006, we were talking about communities in general, throughout all of history. Religion is and always has been a fact of life. A binding force in the community, and so it has always been right to teach your children religious beliefs because it will make them a part of the community, which human beings need so desperately to survive. You think it's wrong because of modern secular thinking, and nothing more. There is no absolutism to this issue. It's purely relative. It depends on who you are, where you are, and you are trying to make it into a high-minded moral debate, in which you think you're right and everyone else is wrong because you've indoctrinated yourself into secular, modernist thinking. Whether or not it's right or wrong depends entirely upon time, place, and family, and you are denying that any such dependence exists.

We're not? I was, clearly you didn't pick up on that but don't include me in your statement. Thanks.
No. Neither Baumgarten nor myself was making a moral judgment of religious indoctrination. We were both saying that it was necessary in most societies throughout history (history, as in all time periods and places, thank you).

[geeser]

snakelord the questions must be too hard for baum and jester, talk about avoid the issue.

baum and jester just answer the questions, and stop trying to overlay the questions with irrelevent rubbish.


I'l reprint them here, for you both.

"Kindly show me how not being forced to believe in a specific being results in belief that "you have no place in the world"?"

"How does not forcing your child into belief of a specific deity before he's old enough to even understand the word deity mean he's not being allowed to function in society or that he's being alienated?"

"Now you need to show me how not forcing belief in a god down your childs throat ends up with that child having no friends. Please, I await with bated breath."

[philosopher´s stone]

That's not entirely accurate there my friend.
In jail most people there are religious! ;) Don't forget your pedophile preasts either!

Godless

Hi Godless ,

I forgot that , but the reason so many inmates turn religious, is, that reality in jail is so bad , that they prefer to escape into a delusion of their mind (religion), to escape the everyday life of harsh jail life ......

:)

If you are having big problems , then you always have delusional religion as a comfort ..........

[philosopher´s stone]

They do tend to deify persons like dawkins

Funny , I just talked to 3 of my atheist friends , neither of them had ever heard about Dawkins - I had to look him up on wikipedia myself - you are right, Dawkins is an atheist ........ never heard about him myself before ....

I asked them whether they deified any atheists - they looked at me like I was crazy - one of them asked if meant Darwin .......

:)

[SnakeLord]

Aye. I suppose it would be worth doing a quick summary for jester so he understands what I've been asking and why I've been asking it. All in good time I guess..

Rhetorical questions escape you, it seems. You seem to be stuck on this throughout your post. I was actually saying it with the hope that you had read history extensively, so that you could better understand my position. I suppose this was entirely lost upon you.

Piss taking at the expense of someone that made a rather stupid opening statement seems to escape you.

History is no standard by which to compare the fundamentals of human nature? I guess we should just ignore it, then. This is patently ridiculous. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about all of human history.

You very well might be, but what you're obviously failing to grasp is that I wasn't, before Baum jumped in and started waffling about how "The church doesn't do that!", when I'd never even mentioned churches, and ended up going on about tribe a and if we didn't all force our kids into specific belief then they'd have no friends, (something I still await either of you to justify). Kenny seemed to understand, indeed asking Baum what his tribe nonsense had to do with "forced religious indoctrination in modern society", to which Baum mentioned hot dogs and baseball, (and I too have mentioned football) - while the pair of you seem blissfully unaware that I am not talking about teaching children but forcing belief upon them.

By all means teach children about football, baseball and hot dogs. Don't force them to watch football and eat hotdogs. If you disagree with that statement, (under Baum's original basis that not forcing them will mean they have no friends), then once again I ask you to justify it. Once that is done we can move on to history and the effects of forced belief and if that still applies in a vastly multicultural country in the year 2006.

It is often said that football is the religion of England. Are you saying that if I don't force feed football team worship to my son that he will have no friends? That's what Baum is saying and that is what I am questioning. Worth pointing out perhaps that I hate football, have never liked it - but yes, do understand the game. Whether it's believed or not, I do have friends, (many of whom are serious football fans funnily enough).

Funnily enough I also have jewish friends, scientologist friends, hindu friends etc and yet I have never been force fed to believe in their specific religions or gods. Your entire post crumbles to dust on this very statement.

I was talking about the nature of humanity reaching back into the darkest depths of time.

That's really very interesting, but once again does not really answer the questions I posed or offer much in the way of value to my original statement.

They come from people, and you're condemnation of those values, and of instilling them in young children, is no different or more noble than the condemnation of one group of people by another.

The Saturday paedophile club would give you a big "bravo".

Forget about the ultimate truth or falsity of the particular belief of a religion.

Forget? Wtf.. surely that's the most important thing? I'm sorry, is that what goes through your mind while you brain fuck your child into believing in whatever you tell him to?

"I'm a leprechaunist.. forget if it's true or not son. Believe it or else"

--------

"Well son, there's many different religions that have different beliefs. Here's a list. What do you think?"

*child starts using their own brain*

"well dad, I think..."

That is education, the former one was force fed belief. You seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between the two, (possibly because you're stuck in the deepest, darkest pits of human history).

You're arguing against religious indoctrination (or so it seems), not against indoctrination of a specific (as in, Christianity, for instance, or Islam) belief system.

My original statement was concerned with forcing someone to believe or do something, (not that they should never get an education as you seemingly think). This applies not just to religious belief, (although given religious beliefs common "forget if it's true or not" attitude which quite frankly is not the way humans should go through life makes it all the more pertinent), but to forced belief of just about anything. It is the very fact that it isn't "forced" which still allows Texas halfwits to go around claiming evolution is hokum. Now, to go back to the original question and my statement:

"If a bunch of fisherman want to talk about fishing what's wrong with it?"

My response: Nothing, as long as they do not force everyone else to fish.

I went on to explain that a week after a child is born, many parents assign what that child will or will not believe. By heck, if your parents believe in leprechauns so will you. The rebuttal to that is that if they don't you wont have any friends, wont survive and will probably jump off a very large building sometime soon. I ask for justification of those claims. At the registry of my daughters birth I told the woman I didn't know my childs religion, but promised to come back in 20 years time when my daughter has figured it out for herself. My daughter has friends, she's not suicidal and she's surviving quite comfortably. You and Baum seem to think that's impossible, so justify it.

What I'm saying is that neither of us made this into a moral issue, and you are forcing it into one.

I didn't force anything, I made a statement that has been understood by some and not understood by others. I have not, as Baum claims, had a pop at churches, nor have I made statements against educating children as you seem to believe. What I want from you is justification to force a specific belief in a specific deity to a child that is not even old enough to say "goo goo". Saying that its justified because they did it in the deepest, darkest locations on earth 2000 years ago is not really an answer.

What are we to do? Teach children nothing at all?

Now you're being extremely silly or just oblivious to what I've been saying.

It is warranted, and in deeply religious societies it is equally essential.

Deeply religious societies heh. I understand and agree with that, (although do personally hope the trend is broken eventually). I have not disputed that in the poorer, less educated nations where religiosity is high, (this seems to include the US, which although not poor or specifically uneducated, is the anomaly with a high religiosity rate), that right now kids might indeed be alienated without sharing that belief. Let's instead look at the majority of first world nations.

Statistically speaking concerning religious importance.. The trend is thus:

Senegal 97% (yes, a child here might very well be alienated)
Indonesia/Nigeria/India/Pakistan/Mali/Ivory Coast 90-95% (same as above)
Some more African nations in the 80's
South American nations in the 60's
The anomalous USA with 59%

Then you have a massive gap...

European nations from the mid 30's all the way down to 11%.

Now, if we were to concentrate on the European nations for now, do you still ascribe to the idea that if religious belief is not forced then the child will have no friends? Do you still indeed consider it "essential to survival"? (this is what I seek answer to)

Take into account that for this debate I am:

A) Not talking about baseball, football, or hot dogs

B) Not talking about not 'educating' children, but as it has always been, forcing belief

and C) Not talking about 1000 years ago.

As I said before, if you absolutely believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that your particular religious belief is going to be the most important factor in your child's life, how can you not teach them about it?

There's the thing though, it's nothing to do with not "teaching". And here's the other thing, I can almost guarantee you that if, for arguments sake, you were a deeply religious christian and found out the local school was forcing islamic belief on your child, you'd understand what I've been saying. It remains however, that neither of you are in the right, (and undoubtedly fixed with that "forget whats true or not" attitude), while ensuring your child grows up believing whatever you want it to believe - with no regard whatsoever for your own child's future thoughts or feelings on the matter. This then leads to 'alienation' when your own child grows up a tad and decides it doesn't want to be what you have tried to ensure it would be by force feeding it 'junk thoughts' for the majority of it's early life. And that there is the beef of the issue.. My daughters father loves his alcohol. He loves to crack open a few beers/bottles of wine and enjoy what they have to offer. That does not in any way give me the right, or indeed make it essential for survival, that I force my child to do the same - absolutely f***ing regardless to how much I love, cherish and worship my beer. Given that a mass % of the English population love to drink, does that mean I am ensuring my daughter has no friends, cannot find her place in the world or not survive? Absolutely not. Only a raving, halfwitted idiot would claim otherwise. To mimic you for the sake of it; "forget whether beer is healthy or not". Why, I could say that all day long - but what of my childs rights?

You see, the flaw in your reasoning here is very simple: You assign no intrinsic value to religious belief of any kind, and consider them simply flights of fanciful imagination (or so it seems).

Hey pal, you were the one telling me to not really care whether it's true or not, and I can see just what you mean given my above analogy. Fuck 'em, right? Who cares as long as you force it upon your child, because without it they wont survive, wont have friends, will feel alienated and end up committing suicide. Why is it that no matter how hard I try you will not justify the only thing I am asking justification for in this thread?
Now, let's be frank.. I might not, indeed I don't, find flaws in mass alcohol consumption - indeed, being English, I consider it of utmost importance to everyone English - it is our culture, our way of life. Now kindly point out the flaw in my reasoning that my personal beliefs of alcohol consumption must be forced upon my daughter for her to be able to survive or have friends. You are right, I do not assign religious belief the same value that I assign lager. Now tell me what that has to do with the price of a bag of chips.

Most people do not feel as you do, and so they do not consider the instilling of (to you) valueless beliefs as immoral in the slightest.

Paedophiles don't feel as I do. Now justify the forcing of a specific belief onto a child and how not doing that will mean they have no friends and will not survive. Please, I've only asked 1000 times.

On the contrary, they consider it their moral imperative to teach their children about their God/gods

Although I'm clearly going to have to resort to drawing pictures, let it be said for the last time that I do not have an issue with "teaching".

Historical perspective is absolutely essential in understanding why people do things. You are making a moral judgment of an activity that is rooted in the very seat of humanity's existence. You are looking at something which has been instilled in every culture around the world for thousands of generations and saying that it is "wrong"

An interesting concept.. "It's old, so you can't say it's wrong". What can I say, slavery is rooted in the very seat of humanity's existence - clearly that ain't wrong either. Who the fuck am I to question something when it has been done for millennia? The very fact that it has been done for millennia makes it ok, means it's perfectly peachy. Forget progression, it's for tossers who don't appreciate history.

The adage: "If it aint broke don't fix it" would be good here, but you'd undoubtedly shorten it to "don't fix it".

"They did it 1000 years ago! We have to continue or we'll never survive or have friends!"

For generations upon generations the world was flat. Some prick came along and challenged it. Fuck him too. Bastard.

Not once did I ever say that here and now it is right for people to do this. I have maintained that assigning a moral judgment to this activity is that which is false, and you continue to act as if I have said that it is right.

Actually no. I continue to ask you and Baum to justify the statement that it is "essential to survival" and lack of doing so means you "have no friends". Your seemingly only attempted justification right now is that they did it 1000 years ago. I would laugh at that but I'm far too busy getting my daughter and I drunk.

Well, then you're talking about a much more narrow subject then either of us.

Narrow, wide, long, short, fat, thin, cute or ugly is of no relevance. You seem insistant that man dare not ever challenge something that has been around for thousands of years, while excusing every paedophile in the world for brain fucking their children to be paedohpiles just because they feel like it - all the while completely ignoring the questions I have asked. Don't worry though, I will let you live..Wait, murder has been an intrinsic part of humanity going back to the dawn of humanity, (and indeed from a religious perspective was one of the first things to occur). Wait, let me get my daughter.. I've got something to force feed her.

What we are saying is that it is hardwired into people's behavior to indoctrinate their children into religious belief, and that your characterization of it as morally wrong is silly at best.

That's fine, now you just need to justify how it is "silly at best". Kindly do not give me the "they did it 1000 years ago" crap.

And my statement, as I for some reason need to keep repeating, is that making moral judgments of a fundamental human activity, one that has always been essential to society's smooth functioning until recently, is a silly path to tread.

How dare you question the world's flatness! I shall see you hang from the gallows for such a crime.

I would say "needless to say", but clearly I do need to say it, but there are many social species on the planet. Not one of them, other than humans, feels the need to force feed religious belief to their young. They will teach - most certainly.

Now, kindly justify the "essential" need to force belief in a specific religion/deity on your child.

(say in a spasticated voice): "But.. but.. they did it 1000 years ago".

Ancient history is the reason why people do this.

Yee fucking haw. Ancient people also used to piss on the floor. Must we really continue the trend just because they did? Ancient people also used to shove christians into pits with lions. Which one of you wants to go first?

It's been so much a part of culture for so many thousands and thousands of years that there is no other way that people know

I disagree. The 33%- 11% religiosity in most of Europe points towards the opposite. Unlike you, not everyone is stuck in the deepest, darkest parts of history. No sir, we have progressed - we continue to progress. To quote the papers:

"Organized religion is in near-terminal decline in Britain..." Matt Barnwell & Amy Iggulden, of the News.Telegraph

Oh could you imagine it? Could you, so stuck in the past, imagine a world where religion was in terminal decline? Where people did not force their children to believe what they believed? All the "it can't happen, people did it thousands of years ago!" will not help or save your arguments. You are a relic, a dinosaur. All the protests that it's essential and needed to have friends crumble into nothingness. Please, I beg and urge you - justify the statements. Show me clearly why, (without worrying about what they did before the invention of wheels), force feeding religious belief here and now leads to having no friends and is essential to survival. Man have I got a hard on for the answer. Please, I implore you.

I would even contend that it's still essential

You would heh? Ok here is your big chance... Justify that statement. $50 says you don't.

Imagine if there were no sense of patriotism within your nation. Where does that sense come from? Does it come naturally? No. It comes because parents, and public schooling, and the community at large has taught everyone to think like that. It's a part of the citizen's identity. It's who they are, for heaven's sake.

33% implies it isn't who they are - heavens sake, bananas sake or anything else sake aside. For thousands of years mankind has forced fed belief to their young - and through all of that only a third of the English have listened. But no, sayeth you.. it is "Essential", it is what we've always done, it is the only thing we know. I promise you dear sir, force feed or have no friends. The choice is yours. I would say you're talking out of your rectum if I didn't know that bums cant talk.

It's a part of cultural identity. If you remove it, without replacing it with something else, you remove a large part of what makes a person a part of the community that they came from.

11% in France. A large part? I disagree. I've met people that (have friends) and get along just peachy without forced belief. Ok, they're not religious - and nor are they like that guy that lived back in the stone age - but they are part of their community, perhaps because there is always something else - be it fishing, drug pushing or football. And while the teaching is fine, not one of them needed to be forced into any specific belief. For the absolute last time: Justify how it is "essential to survival" and is the only way to have friends.

That's what we were arguing. We weren't talking about the U.K. in 2006, we were talking about communities in general, throughout all of history.

No, we weren't. You seem to be the only person that doesn't understand that.

Religion is and always has been a fact of life.

And that, undoubtedly, makes it fine to force upon your children.

You know, rape is and always has been a fact of life. I'm sorry, what was your point?

which human beings need so desperately to survive

You keep saying that and I keep calling you on it. Why can you not justify the statement other than to say they did it a millennia ago?

in which you think you're right and everyone else is wrong because you've indoctrinated yourself into secular, modernist thinking.

Don't get smarmy with me boy, I have been decent enough to ask more questions than make plain statements. Unfortunately neither of you have had the common decency to answer those questions. All it takes is you. Although I said I wouldn't, need I ask those questions one more time?

Neither Baumgarten nor myself was making a moral judgment of religious indoctrination. We were both saying that it was necessary in most societies throughout history (history, as in all time periods and places, thank you)

That's absolutely peachy. Let's end with a couple more questions, (that will undoubtedly never be answered)

A) Because something could perhaps possibly be considered "necessary" in "most societies in history", does that mean it is necessary right here and now in societies that are vastly multicultural?"

B) Is my alcoholism "essential" to the survival of my daughter, and if I do not force it upon her will she end up with no friends? If not, kindly justify the difference between my alcoholism and belief in a specific floaty space being.

C) Just for the sake of it: Would you consider it 'wrong' if your children were forced into believing scientology was the "truth" (tm), by your local schooling establishment or perhaps by me, or someone else?

D) Any chance you could answer my question and justify the statements that you have made?

Good day.

[Jaster Mereel]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your diatribe, and just stick to the questions at the end of your post. Undoubtedly, you'll ignore what I have to say and continue asking those very same questions, but here goes...

A) Because something could perhaps possibly be considered "necessary" in "most societies in history", does that mean it is necessary right here and now in societies that are vastly multicultural?"
NO. I've already said this. I've already said that it depends on time and place, but you looked over that part, didn't you? The ony part that provides common ground between both of our arguments, and you skip right over it. It seems like you're not interested in reconciling our respective views, which is what a debate is all about. No, you've turned this into two people yelling at one another. For the sake of attempting to fix this problem, I'll quote myself (in context, as well. something which you seem unable to do):
There is no absolutism to this issue. It's purely relative. It depends on who you are, where you are,
There's the key quote, right there. It's not hard to find the rest of the argument, and I sincerely suggest you actually try and understand my position, or else this is going to become a fruitless waste of time for the both of us.
B) Is my alcoholism "essential" to the survival of my daughter, and if I do not force it upon her will she end up with no friends? If not, kindly justify the difference between my alcoholism and belief in a specific floaty space being.
Wow. I'm going to ignore your totally inane comparison of alcoholism to religion, because I'm sure that you can tell the difference between the two (if you need me to explain it to you, then by all means). If you can't, I suggest you stop debating the issue because it would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding with which to support yourself.

Moving away from that, and the insult, onto the subject at hand... No. If you don't teach your daughter to be an alcoholic it won't cause her to have no friends, because A: The comparison doesn't work. People don't kill each other over what brand of beer is better, and B: If we move back to religion, in your particular society, religious belief is not necessary to a child's cultural identity. You've already admitted that in some places it is, and if a child grows up not believing what everyone else in the community believes they are likely to live a lonely, isolated life (Baum was drawing a connection between living a lonely, isolated life and suicide, although they are not always connected like that, obviously). As I said, there is no absolutely right thing to do on this issue. If you're in a society like Europe, or the United States, religious indoctrination (in most places) is not necessary, because religion is not a deep seated part of the culture (I know you Europeans seem to think that the United States is deeply religious, but stop listening to the speeches our president gives... he doesn't represent the real majority of us, especially on this issue. The United States is a secular country, we're all just greedy bastards who like to throw rhetoric around like monkey's tossing feces at one another).

C) Just for the sake of it: Would you consider it 'wrong' if your children were forced into believing scientology was the "truth" (tm), by your local schooling establishment or perhaps by me, or someone else?
Yes. I would consider it wrong if my child was "forced" to believe anything at all. But I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by forced. Really, what do you mean? It seems to me that you believe the only way a child could ever believe religious teachings is if it is stuffed down their throat, without giving them any time to critically think about the ideas they're being fed. If that is what you're talking about, then I'd have to say it doesn't happen all that often. I know plenty of peope who grew up religious, and never once did their parents threaten them with punishment if they didn't do to church, or tell them that they would burn in hell for not believing. You seem to have this very twisted preconceived notion about religious people, that they are ignorant, stupid, violent, intolerant apes that don't allow their children to think freely. If that is the case, then I'd have to say you've either known quite a few fanatics, or you haven't known many religious people.

[baumgarten]

"Kindly show me how not being forced to believe in a specific being results in belief that "you have no place in the world"?"

"How does not forcing your child into belief of a specific deity before he's old enough to even understand the word deity mean he's not being allowed to function in society or that he's being alienated?"

"Now you need to show me how not forcing belief in a god down your childs throat ends up with that child having no friends. Please, I await with bated breath."
These three quotes ask essentially the same question. Since neither the example given or the explanation of its principles by either Jaster or me seem to satisfy, I'll try to put it succinctly.

If everyone around you engages in a religious behavior or shares a belief, or indeed any behavior or belief that with which the population identifies culturally, and that behavior or belief is not shared by you, that alienates you from that culture and that society. A child who early on is alienated from his peers will feel like he has no place in the world, so if any belief of cultural significance -- not just a religious belief, but anything important to that particular society's worldview -- is not impressed upon the child at an early age, it will lessen the likelihood that he will be able to get along with his peers, understand the society he's living in, and essentially be able to eventually function in the real world.

This points to the very reason why there is culture: It facilitates the cohesion of a group, thereby providing an advantage for survival. Inasmuch as religion is collectively considered to be a part of culture identity (and it undeniably is in most times and places in humanity) it shares in this advantageousness. An individual in a group who shares in its cultural identity (and therefore religion in most cases) will be at an advantage, and contrapositively, one who does not will be at a disadvantage. It is no mistake that the old idiom, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," survives to this day.

And yes, even in today's melting pot of a world, it is still important to belong to some kind of group. And many groups still exist, and they still strive to establish some individuality among all the friction and diffusion. Even if you're the quintissential Western secular man, brought up that way from birth, you're a member of the Western secular culture and you share in its worldview. You have been indoctrinated with silly Western beliefs that help you survive in a Western society. Of course they are not silly to you, but silliness is a matter of perspective, as anyone educated of worldly matters should know. A tribe of culturally isolated hunter-gatherers would surely puzzle upon their exposure to our society, just as the first American colonists struggled to understand the natives of the New World.

I've seen the same question thrice; this is my last attempt to answer it. If the question must be asked a fourth time, we'll have to chalk it up to an ultimate failure in communication, or perhaps the lack of a willingness to understand.

[SnakeLord]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your diatribe

You know, It's my birthday today and I love surprises. That wasn't one.

Undoubtedly, you'll ignore what I have to say and continue asking those very same questions, but here goes...

That's great. When beaten into a corner, the 'victim'' generally starts coming out with the very same comments that the guy he's debating with stated first. It somehow seemingly reflects focus off the 'victim' who has up until now proven incapable of answering simple questions and back on to the other debater. It's a classic maneuvre and one I would congratulate you on if I didn't have more important things on my mind right now.


NO. I've already said this. I've already said that it depends on time and place, but you looked over that part, didn't you?

Alas I haven't overlooked anything, but given that it took you 3 entire posts and just one lonely little sentence at the end of your third to agree to what I was saying, I thought I'd leave it up to you to point out a tad more clearly. Suffice it to say, an underlined 'no' is sufficient. I am glad we agree.

It seems like you're not interested in reconciling our respective views, which is what a debate is all about.

Sorry master Yoda. Now you have enlightened me as to what a debate is or is not, I shall never make the mistake again. Btw, is there any chance of an actual debate here or are you just going to continue telling me what I am or am not capable of? No my dear little friend, I have never read a book, have never had a debate, have never learnt about history. Anything else you'd like to add?

Let it be said that I have been trying to 'reconcile this issue' ever since Baum decided to butt in saying I have an issue with churches - although not once did I mention churches. Since that moment I have had to tip-toe my way through this thread through fear of someone telling me whether I can read or not while also telling me anything I say will be ignored the very second it becomes a little too hard to answer.

Now, to make it totally clear to you, oh master sir..

1) It is wrong, (in modern day English society - that's England 2006), for a parent to force specific belief upon their child without the consent of that child.

2) If you believe, (as has been stated by you and Baum), that not forcing a child into belief means he will have no friends and not survive, then you need to justify your statements.

Wow. I'm going to ignore your totally inane comparison...

I'd be impressed if it wasn't so fucking typical. The minute someone calls you, just pretend it's worthless, (although not having the decency to explain and justify yourself), and then say "I'm ignoring it". It's weak.

comparison of alcoholism to religion, because I'm sure that you can tell the difference between the two (if you need me to explain it to you, then by all means).

Shoot.

You offered, I'm calling you on it. Please, do enlighten me..

If you can't, I suggest you stop debating the issue because it would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding with which to support yourself.

Now you're getting ahead of yourself. You couldn't manage to justify your statements - no sir, you just said they are as you say and if I disagree it's because I know nothing - and somehow think that's acceptable. If you knew anything about debate you'd know you have to try a little harder than that. Now, kindly show the level of maturity not to give the billy big balls "I'm ignoring that, and you don't understand but I wont explain it" speech and get on with it. Let me guess, it's all because they did it 2000 years ago?

because A: The comparison doesn't work. People don't kill each other over what brand of beer is better

Ok. So what you're now saying is that you must force religious belief upon your child because religious people kill each other. It's certainly an interesting idea. No, you don't need to force beer drinking on your children because people don't kill each other over beer. Hmmm... Well jester, that's a mighty fine premise you've got going there, yes siree.

B: If we move back to religion, in your particular society, religious belief is not necessary to a child's cultural identity.

I see. So what are you telling me? Are you now recinding your earlier statements that forcing religious belief is "essential to survival"? Are you saying that my "particular society", (and yes I understand that the UK is a weird and strange place unlike any other on earth), is in a position where there is no justification for forcing religious belief on children? Are you agreeing with my original statements and as a result showing that everything else you've said until now was worthless? Are you finally accepting that Baum was full of shit when saying it is essential to force feed belief to a child otherwise he has no friends? Why, it seems like you are. I commend the bravery.

If you're in a society like Europe, or the United States, religious indoctrination (in most places) is not necessary, because religion is not a deep seated part of the culture

Let's step up a gear. You ready? K.. Would you say a parent/teaching establishment/tramp on the street has the right to force belief in a specific religion/deity on a child? Yes or no please.

(I know you Europeans seem to think that the United States is deeply religious, but stop listening to the speeches our president gives... he doesn't represent the real majority of us, especially on this issue. The United States is a secular country, we're all just greedy bastards who like to throw rhetoric around like monkey's tossing feces at one another).

I hate to sort of... interrupt that apparent hatred you have for the leader of your own country - why, it's the same in many countries, and no - I'm not a fan of Blair - but that is not where the statistics come from. Thinking religiosity statistics come from how Bush acts is a little naive. An interesting statement from religioustolerance.org

"More American adults consider religion much more important than do the citizens of all other industrialized states. "Americans’ views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations"

Hate to spill it to you, but this really isn't all Bush's fault, no matter how much you might dislike the guy. Now, if you still think it's all because of Bush speeches I would kindly ask that you back up those statements with some data.

The monkey bit was probably spot on.

Yes. I would consider it wrong if my child was "forced" to believe anything at all.

Finally. Thank you.

Just to recap quickly for the sake of the simple..

Original question: "what's wrong with fishermen gathering and talking about fishing?"

Me: "Nothing, as long as they don't force everyone else to fish. It is wrong for parents/teaching establishemnts to force belief in a specific belief/deity on a child."

You: "But.. but 1000 years ago, it's essential for survival, they'll have no friends......"

You slightly later on: "Yes. I would consider it wrong if my child was "forced" to believe anything at all."

Fucking hell... longest way to get to an agreement I've ever seen.

But I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by forced. Really, what do you mean?

Oh dear lord odin, (yes you MUST believe in odin), gimme a break. I'll be here another 20,000 words just trying to explain it to you - all the while you telling me I can't read and what not just to eventually say you'll ignore me while completely agreeing to my original statement.

However, I will answer your question given that I am not the ignoring type, (even though you weakly tried to mirror it back to me all the while ignoring my questions). Hell, I don't even have Happeh on ignore and he's the biggest, most idiotic pisspot I have ever met in my life. What is force?

I like the definition: "to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something"

To get a classroom full of children of all different cultures and backgrounds to stand up in assembly and thank a being, (that has absolutely nothing to promote it's existence), for existence - without the consent of the children involved is an act of forced indoctrination. Wouldn't you love to see the consequences of a child refusing?

For a parent to force their child to obey godly laws and customs without them even understanding those laws and customs - or their origin, is an act of forced indoctrination.

For your parent to force you to be a true scientologist because they are is forced indoctrination. You claim it essential, I disagree. You need to support your claims. Here is where you'll undoubtedly state you're going to ignore my diatribe and that scientology and christianity are incomparable. Again that is something you need to justify first.

If at this stage you are getting confused and somehow think the above are examples of "teaching", then we probably have more of an issue than I'd personally like to believe, (no you do not have to share that belief).

Take into account that we are also talking 2006 Uk, not 0006 Jerusalem.

It seems to me that you believe the only way a child could ever believe religious teachings is if it is stuffed down their throat

The only way? Absolutely not. The majority of religious people find belief after a tragic, life changing accident. We can argue, and perhaps should, that if a parent is that sure of their beliefs, there's never a need to force it - for surely the child will find out it is true eventually? However, to have a 3 year old boy wearing a skullcap and praying to almighty Yhwh when simply put he doesn't even understand what he's talking about or praying to is wrong. To have a young child dunked in water and told to eat some weird looking shit before she's old enough to recite her abc's is wrong. Surely it can wait? What's wrong with turning round to your 18 year old son and saying: "Hey, wanna get your head thrust in a bowl of water and eat a biscuit while some bald paedophile says you're now one of the good guys?"

Why is it "essential to survival" that we do that to a 6 month old? I know your arguments already.. It's different to alcohol because religious people kill each other and have been doing it for millennia. As such it's essential.

Really, that is not an argument. It's funny, but it aint an argument.

then I'd have to say it doesn't happen all that often.

Says the guy that thinks European knowledge of American religiosity is all Bush's fault and that alcohol and religion differ simply because alcohol doesn't kill as many people. Please, you're having a laugh.

You seem to have this very twisted preconceived notion about religious people, that they are ignorant, stupid, violent, intolerant apes that don't allow their children to think freely.

You know, it might seem quite bizarre but I didn't say anything about religious people. I said that parents/education establishments do not have the right to force specific belief upon children. Where did I say anyone was an ignorant, violent, intolerant ape? Let me guess.. More rhetoric, (aka arse gas).

---------

These three quotes ask essentially the same question.

Aye, but it was ignored so much I felt it best to ask it a few times.

Anyway, let's proceed..

If everyone around you engages in a religious behavior or shares a belief

Ok, they don't - but just for arguments sake let's say they do. By the way, are we talking any belief specifically or just any belief of millions that you'll find in a vastly multicultural country?

or indeed any behavior or belief that with which the population identifies culturally

Okey doke. What would that be in England then? Clearly football considering 33% state religiosity while some 60%+ state a love for football. If I may jump the gun.. We must force football on our children or they'll have no friends? I'll get right on it.

and that behavior or belief is not shared by you, that alienates you from that culture and that society.

I disagree. Admittedly I don't say much when the friends start talking about West Ham, the premiership or team bribes, but "alienated"? I don't think so. Of course the the little religious bodlings walk past with their heads to the floor - probably feeling alienated and wondering why they can't be part of the "norm", which unfortunately is all because their father forced them into the life they lead - from how their penis would look, *snip*, to what clothes they'd wear and what space fairy they'd bow down to. In the meantime I sit there questioning things. The friends talk football so I watch a game, read the paper - whatever. I'm sorry, it just doesn't float my boat. A bunch of sweaty men running round kicking a pigs testicle? I don't see the value of it. I read the koran, the new testament, the enuma elish - all bollocks. Certainly interesting as far as history is concerned, but reality? Please, it's simple foolishness. These things I have sat down and decided. My parents never told me what I would believe. They never forced me into worship of something I did not understand. No sir, free as a bird I questioned and came up with my own answers, (be they true or not. Of course some would say that whats true doesn't matter. "Forget if it's true or not, who gives a shit". I personally find that repulsive and weak).

And being that finding true answers is what drives humanity, I find it just as sickening that someone will never even question it because they spent their early years being force fed what's true or not by someone that does not have the right to decide. It's no surprise the arguments to my statement comes from the man that says "forget what's true or not". It's only truth, since when did that count for anything?

Poor little kids, stumbling down the road professing something as truth that they acquired before they were even old enough to be able to spell 'truth - all because their parents had decided it was true, truth be damned. As I keep saying, I suppose they're just lucky their parents didn't believe in leprechauns. But it's essential for survival I hear you mutter.

not just a religious belief, but anything important to that particular society's worldview -- is not impressed upon the child at an early age, it will lessen the likelihood that he will be able to get along with his peers, understand the society he's living in, and essentially be able to eventually function in the real world.

Justify the forcing of any belief onto a child and how it will prevent not having friends and eventual suicide. Admittedly you might live in the Congo, I just don't know, but here in the UK our kids can function without forced indoctrination. My daughter, young as she is, (mildly), understands the tenets of islam, hinduism, judaism and christianity. She hasn't chosen which, if any, of those she subscribes to or believes in - She probably will eventually, but she functions just fine. She has friends, is not alienated, has not jumped off a roof and yes - survives. Justify your statements. My daughter must be a real anomaly to you two.

This points to the very reason why there is culture: It facilitates the cohesion of a group, thereby providing an advantage for survival. Inasmuch as religion is collectively considered to be a part of culture identity (and it undeniably is in most times and places in humanity) it shares in this advantageousness. An individual in a group who shares in its cultural identity (and therefore religion in most cases) will be at an advantage, and contrapositively, one who does not will be at a disadvantage. It is no mistake that the old idiom, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," survives to this day.

Having progressed far beyond the days of hunter gatherer type tribes with long bushy tails and rudimentary tools, I would still question the right of a parent/educational establishment to force a belief into a child. There is a mighty difference between "when in Rome" and "you must go to Rome" - which is essentially where this debate resides. Let me know when you understand that concept. I'll repeat it:

"when in Rome", vs "you must go to Rome".

I've seen the same question thrice; this is my last attempt to answer it. If the question must be asked a fourth time, we'll have to chalk it up to an ultimate failure in communication, or perhaps the lack of a willingness to understand.

The amusing thing is that not one of those questions was actually answered, even though you went so far as to use the word "succinctly" at the beginning of your post.

You keep saying you'll be alienated, but can't substantiate it. You keep saying it is essential for survival but can't substantiate it. You keep pretending that we all live in a society where there is but one belief when you know that's utter lunacy. Unfortunately through all of that and you cannot justify why it is 'essential' to force belief in a specific deity to a child.

Save a fourth answer, I'll drag this down to basics..

Let's say I am a teacher, and a very devout scientologist. I have now decided, (because we're all in Rome/it's essential to survival/the kids need friends), that my entire class of 5 year olds must all be scientologists. Am I right to force them into it? (yes or no only thank you).

[lightgigantic]

Litghtee not sure? Man you need reading comprehesion skills. I'm not advocating of diminishing an authorative figure, only and only in the case, were a victim is abused! Damn dood get it straight!. We are talking about abuse here riiiiighhht? If you are in a cituation where an authorative figure is abusing you, however slight that may be, hurting your ego, or a child's behind that you know of, would you let the abuse continue?, or call the law's authoraty to put the pervert in jail?

so how many parents have abused their children? - Does that mean we should abolish parenthood?

How many politicians have abused the citizens? Does that mean we should abolish political leadership?

How many people have been abused in the pursuit of things like freedom/justice/love etc etc ? Does that mean we should abolish such things also?

[lightgigantic]

Adding people to ignore is the get-out clause for the theist. I've seen many atheists be downright rude to theists who are known for putting people on ignore, yet in these occassions they don't put them on ignore, because they have an easy comeback to those who are blatantly rude. However, when the atheist has a valid point which the theist has no answer, they will often seek out any sarcasm as an excuse to ignore them. It's just a way to save face going by the way they continually boast about putting certain people on ignore as it is a way to instantly dismiss everything xxx person has said.

For example in a typical God-hates-gays thread, I was put on ignore for suggesting that God hates left handed people too. It's just interesting that in the religion forum, t'is the theists who typically put the atheists on ignore, and not the other way around. I think this is a clear demonstration of how frustrating it can be arguing a cause that there is no evidence for.

Don't know why others put people on ignore lists but for me its because a person cannot hold a civilised discussion - as for remarkable atheistic arguments - frankly I am yet to hear one

[KennyJC]

as for remarkable atheistic arguments - frankly I am yet to hear one

I'm sure you know this is not true - You never have any answers for anything despite your apparent confidence in the existence God and other attributes that go along with it.

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

I'm sure you know this is not true
Nope - or at least if its true you are not offering anything - rather than going on with your dogmatic hype how it is true why don't you just give an example of how it is true

- You never have any answers for anything despite your apparent confidence in the existence God and other attributes that go along with it.
just like there are no answers for a high school drop out regarding the electron

[Jaster Mereel]

just like there are no answers for a high school drop out regarding the electron
Hey, hey... we've already established that baumgarten is a High School dropout, and he knows all about electrons...

[lightgigantic]

Hey, hey... we've already established that baumgarten is a High School dropout, and he knows all about electrons...
sorry - this is a running metaphor - if you take a hypothetical high school drop out (not necesarily anyone in particular) who is adverse to physicists ("eggheads") and the books they advocate ("full of crap") there is no question of accepting electrons in principle due to an attitude problem of the beforementioned drop out - its an analogy for the atheist who insists that there is no evidence for god while maintaining that scripture is an imagination and perfected spiritual persons are full of crap etc etc

[lightgigantic]

“ And to light, not that he/she/it can see this: No. You put me on ignore because I asked you a question you could not answer. ”

actually it was because Snakelord insisted that there was no difference between theistic practioner and someone performing oral sex on children - once again - hardly a civilised proposal for intelligent discussion .......
:rolleyes:

[KennyJC]

sorry - this is a running metaphor - if you take a hypothetical high school drop out (not necesarily anyone in particular) who is adverse to physicists ("eggheads") and the books they advocate ("full of crap") there is no question of accepting electrons in principle due to an attitude problem of the beforementioned drop out - its an analogy for the atheist who insists that there is no evidence for god while maintaining that scripture is an imagination and perfected spiritual persons are full of crap etc etc

And you have been told 1,000 times that it's a piss poor analogy. Study of science will show you plenty of evidence for the existence of an electron. It's merits are drawn up from physical reality, experiment and measurement.

Religious study however, does not result in any verifiable evidence or information to suggest the existence of God. Why else would we have scholars/professors in theology who don't neccessarily believe in God? Because it's based on subjective emotional 'experience'. Expertise in religion is different to that of actual belief in it's myths.

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

And you have been told 1,000 times that it's a piss poor analogy. Study of science will show you plenty of evidence for the existence of an electron. It's merits are drawn up from physical reality, experiment and measurement.
plenty of evidence there in theism too - actually the analogy draws a parrallel between the highschool drop out and the atheist - ATTITUDE

Religious study however, does not result in any verifiable evidence or information to suggest the existence of God.
There are literally miles of literature that suggests otherwise - let me guess they are all eggheads/nutcases huh?


Why else would we have scholars/professors in theology who don't neccessarily believe in God?
Obviously they are paid by someone who is essentially foolish


Because it's based on subjective emotional 'experience'. Expertise in religion is different to that of actual belief in it's myths.
You are right - there is a distinction between a practioner and a scholar - the difference is notable even in fields of mundane knowledge

[SnakeLord]

actually it was because Snakelord insisted that there was no difference between theistic practioner and someone performing oral sex on children - once again - hardly a civilised proposal for intelligent discussion .......

He did? It's unlikely.

[KennyJC]

plenty of evidence there in theism too

The Nobel Prize is waiting for you...

- actually the analogy draws a parrallel between the highschool drop out and the atheist - ATTITUDE

Even if it does, it can be applied to everything you yourself don't believe in - which is why evidence and scientific enquiry is important.

There are literally miles of literature that suggests otherwise - let me guess they are all eggheads/nutcases huh?

Oh, wow... just because there is a lot of writing on the subject means we should all of a sudden believe it to be true without question? There are 'literally miles' of literature for all kinds of superstitions LG. Your arguments are growing increasingly weaker as you desperately try to give justify your superstition.

Obviously they are paid by someone who is essentially foolish

They get paid because they are experts in religious matters. Again, you have no point.

[Jaster Mereel]

He did? It's unlikely.

No, but you did compare belief in God with alcoholism. Again, hardly a basis for reasonable discussion.

[SnakeLord]

No, but you did compare belief in God with alcoholism. Again, hardly a basis for reasonable discussion.

I disagree completely on two levels:

1) I did not compare "god with alcoholism", but compared the similarity between the action of forcing either on to young children, (on the basis that you think what you believe/do is justified simply because you believe it is). It's called an analogy and is entirely reasonable.

2) Once a person uses an analogy or makes comparisons it does not make a discussion unreasonable. Is there something in the paperwork that says one must not mention alcoholics for a discussion to remain reasonable?

It's quite possible that both you and LG are making the same rather naive mistake.


P.S You owe me $50

"You would heh? Ok here is your big chance... Justify that statement. $50 says you don't."

[baumgarten]

SnakeLord, maybe you're missing what I mean by the word 'belief', because you seem to take it to mean something outlandish or ridiculous. So I am chalking up our impasse to a communication failure. The onus is on me to make myself clearer.

By belief, I mean anything that is held to be true. Think of it in an epistemological sense. Indoctrination must occur with any child simply for the fact that he or she is born without knowledge and without a means of qualifying the claims of others. Until one becomes experienced with critical thinking, one appeals to authority for facts. It is inevitable, then, that this tendency to appeal to authority, this "epistemic naivete," will be exploited. For the child, it is impossible to tell for sure whether what he is being told is true.

I'm sure you feel a responsibility to not betray your daughter's trust in your word. Therefore you teach her things that you believe to be true. It is this same responsibility which drives the religious to indoctrinate their children with a belief in God. The two processes are in fact one and the same. I imagine your primary objection to this will be your assertion that your beliefs actually are true, but this ignores the possibility that you could be wrong about something. Epistemologically, the vast majority of things taught to any child go equally unjustified.

Back to group cohesion. It's not that difficult to see how, in a religious community or family, religion plays a major factor in gluing the group together. A Jew among devout Catholics will have that much less in common. This doesn't mean that a child brought up with a different religion (or none at all) than the local norm will have no friends. I actually never claimed that; you assumed that I meant to imply it.* It does, however, pose a social disadvantage, amplified when a common religion really is central to the entire community (which is why I thought the example of the tribe would starkly illustrate the mechanics of it). Modern society is secular, so it poses much, much less of a disadvantage than it used to. But even without the social impetus that has historically preserved the religions of the world, belief alone is enough to perpetuate itself.

The central question is whether it is wrong to impart an unjustified worldview, e.g. religious beliefs, unto a child. A state, especially in secular society, has no business doing such a thing. However, for a parent, some indoctrination is natural, inevitable, and generally good. Considering a child hasn't got the proper tools to find most things out for himself, he needs the parent to be a factual authority to give him a reliable foundation of knowledge. It is one of the crucial functions of parenting.

* It was entirely my fault for appearing to defend a claim I didn't make by not stopping to correct you on my premise. Sorry about that.

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic


plenty of evidence there in theism too ”



The Nobel Prize is waiting for you...
The Dalai Lama got a nobel prize in 1989
:p


“ - actually the analogy draws a parrallel between the highschool drop out and the atheist - ATTITUDE ”



Even if it does, it can be applied to everything you yourself don't believe in - which is why evidence and scientific enquiry is important.
but the point is that evidence is vindicated by enquiry - the analogy illustrates an absence of enquiry


“ There are literally miles of literature that suggests otherwise - let me guess they are all eggheads/nutcases huh? ”



Oh, wow... just because there is a lot of writing on the subject means we should all of a sudden believe it to be true without question?
No - but at least it should make one a bit curious to determine what they advocate to see if it is true or not


There are 'literally miles' of literature for all kinds of superstitions LG. Your arguments are growing increasingly weaker as you desperately try to give justify your superstition.
Its ironic that you can dismiss all such literature despite never reading it - out of curiousity how many scriptural works do you actually know - I bet you would be hard pressed to name even a dozen, much less be familiar with any of them - and yet you feel this foundation of "knowledge" you have is sufficient to dismiss the whole lot
;)


“ Obviously they are paid by someone who is essentially foolish ”



They get paid because they are experts in religious matters. Again, you have no point.
On the contrary such persons do not even interact with people who practice - their entire experience is academic
:D

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by SnakeLord
He did? It's unlikely. ”



No, but you did compare belief in God with alcoholism. Again, hardly a basis for reasonable discussion.

Unlikely? its right here on
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55189

Me - “ What is your perspective of religion and how has it developed to take its current form of existence in society? ”



Snake Lord - "Uh.. a collection of people with the same beliefs came together either by choice or force and started singing songs while a man in a collar gives a blow job to a 10 year old."

:rolleyes:

[KennyJC]

Kenny
The Dalai Lama got a nobel prize in 1989

For peace. So far no awards have ever been given out due to proving God exists. Should someone find evidence of God, I'm sure an accolade of awards would follow and they would become a superstar beyond even that of what Einstein was. Although despite billions of believers, it is telling that nothing has been found.

but the point is that evidence is vindicated by enquiry - the analogy illustrates an absence of enquiry

Evidence of what? Evidence that billions of people follow different branches of the same superstition? That evidence is obvious.

No - but at least it should make one a bit curious to determine what they advocate to see if it is true or not

The answer is simple. Humans believe in all manner of things without the requirement of verification. If of course, a religious follower had verification, there would be no need to invoke 'faith' or 'belief' or 'delusion'.

Its ironic that you can dismiss all such literature despite never reading it - out of curiousity how many scriptural works do you actually know - I bet you would be hard pressed to name even a dozen, much less be familiar with any of them - and yet you feel this foundation of "knowledge" you have is sufficient to dismiss the whole lot

I can safely dismiss any basis it has in describing things that actually exist. That literature has basis in subjective thought only... which doesn't necessarily mean it should be dismissed entirely since it may have some relevance to our human psyche... but I believe it becomes 'delusional' when (like yourself) it becomes dogmatic belief, like religion.



On the contrary such persons do not even interact with people who practice - their entire experience is academic
:D

Well your original argument was that knowledge of scripture was required to accept it as truth, yet academic study doesn't equate to that. Religion works in the way that a person must want to believe in a particular religious sect. That is the only 'knowledge' a person needs to become a 'believer'.

[Satyr]

I bet Communism had the best of intentions and that many communists today will claim that communism was never purely practiced in any country so nobody can judge the dogma by the practices.

I bet you can use this same argument to defend any idealistic, naïve dogma, preaching simplistic, naïve ideals.

[SnakeLord]

Unlikely? its right here on

Ah righty ho. You had me confused with your claim that "Snakelord insisted that there was no difference between theistic practioner and someone performing oral sex on children" when I did not insist anything. That was what, (in this country at least), we refer to as sarcasm - brought on by the fact that you weren't paying attention to anything I said and instead felt it pertinent to just make up answers for me, (seen with my eventual comment: "I didn't insult you, wasn't specifically aggressive and kept my bad language to a minimum. What bothers me is that ten times now I have had to point out what I originally said that made you waffle on about something unrelated to what I said - while having to listen to you telling me what I do or do not think, and while having to put up with all the snide comments that imo are worse than the occasional swear word. Of course I refer to the; "(sigh)...", "oops.." etc.
"). I pointed that out to you several times but you just kept waffling on regardless. That is hardly how to conduct an intelligent discussion. You then went on to label me a fanatic and "insist that anyone who drinks alcohol is not intelligent" all because of some sarcasm because you didn't have the decency to read or understand what I was saying.

Now you've reminded me of that post, put me back on ignore, you're not the kind of person I really want to get into discussions with, (because you don't take the time to listen) - but do kindly take the time to read the last post on that thread from me which stated that:

"Giving an amusing definition of religion has no bearing on intelligence. Of course people all have a different sense of humour, and some don't have any at all."

That's hardly "insisting..." Just thought that was worth pointing out.

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Kenny
The Dalai Lama got a nobel prize in 1989 ”



For peace. So far no awards have ever been given out due to proving God exists. Should someone find evidence of God, I'm sure an accolade of awards would follow and they would become a superstar beyond even that of what Einstein was. Although despite billions of believers, it is telling that nothing has been found.
According to such methodologies of "evidence" that you require the human mind doesn't even exist either - what do you think about that :eek:
BTW its a real shame that a scientist cannot get a nobel peace prize- maybe they could learn something :D


“ but the point is that evidence is vindicated by enquiry - the analogy illustrates an absence of enquiry ”



Evidence of what? Evidence that billions of people follow different branches of the same superstition? That evidence is obvious.
I am talking about enquiry, which is what your example and the example of the high school drop out have in common


“ No - but at least it should make one a bit curious to determine what they advocate to see if it is true or not ”



The answer is simple. Humans believe in all manner of things without the requirement of verification. If of course, a religious follower had verification, there would be no need to invoke 'faith' or 'belief' or 'delusion'.
The high school drop out holds the same attitude because they don't accept the verifaction


“ Its ironic that you can dismiss all such literature despite never reading it - out of curiousity how many scriptural works do you actually know - I bet you would be hard pressed to name even a dozen, much less be familiar with any of them - and yet you feel this foundation of "knowledge" you have is sufficient to dismiss the whole lot ”



I can safely dismiss any basis it has in describing things that actually exist. That literature has basis in subjective thought only... which doesn't necessarily mean it should be dismissed entirely since it may have some relevance to our human psyche... but I believe it becomes 'delusional' when (like yourself) it becomes dogmatic belief, like religion.
C'mon Kenny tell us - how many scriptural works are you familiar with when you make such statements?




“ On the contrary such persons do not even interact with people who practice - their entire experience is academic
”



Well your original argument was that knowledge of scripture was required to accept it as truth, yet academic study doesn't equate to that. Religion works in the way that a person must want to believe in a particular religious sect. That is the only 'knowledge' a person needs to become a 'believer'.
Its like the difference between theory and practice - a person in knowledge (in whatever field) has both

[SnakeLord]

SnakeLord, maybe you're missing what I mean by the word 'belief', because you seem to take it to mean something outlandish or ridiculous. So I am chalking up our impasse to a communication failure. The onus is on me to make myself clearer.

The first time I saw you contribute to this thread, and more importantly to me, was after I had made a statement concerning forced belief. You went on to tell me all about the Alan, Betty, Charlie and Daniel tribe - and told me that if you weren't forced into the Alan tribe way of life, (as your parents were Alans), that you would "feel very alone in the world", "unwanted by the world" and you respond by "rejecting it in kind", "You don't trust anyone" and "your life is miserable".

I disagree completely. My daughter, for the sake of discussion, does not belong to the Alans, Bettys, Charlies or Daniels and yet has a mixture of friends from each of those 'tribes' while not actually belonging to any of them.

This is not to say that certain views and beliefs are not imparted involuntarily. I, for instance, am an Aerosmith fan - and my daughter sings and likes Aerosmith songs mainly because of me - because I listen to them etc.

My original statement said that there's nothing wrong with fishermen gathering to talk about fishing, indeed there's nothing wrong with letting your child experience fishing. It is when they do not have a choice in whether to do it or not, whether to believe it or not that the problem arises.

Now, to get back to the analogy.. If the Alan tribe do not allow their daughter to associate and learn from the Bettys, the Charlies and the Daniels, that is where the issue becomes an issue.

How many schools teach children about the flying spaghetti monster, scientology or other such beliefs? How many parents inform their child about a range of beliefs instead of just their own? It's not at any time to say you will not influence your childs decision making process, but that a choice larger than 1 needs to be established. It's not just fishing, it's not just Aerosmith, it's not just christianity. That is where this issue lies, and I think you're right in saying there is a communication error - although it is clearly not your fault but mine.

My original statement was so misunderstood that it led to Baron talking about churches and Jester talking about ancient Peru.

However, I will and still call you on your analogy. Maybe you didn't mean it, but you seem to think there is no distinction between teaching and forced indoctrination - and that failure to do so results in a person .. {see earlier quotes}. This is what I disagree with, and in the 3 pages since have not really seen an answer to that - indeed having to wait 3 pages to see people finally agree with what I'm saying, (even you: "A state, especially in secular society, has no business doing such a thing"). This is all I was saying.

I have been accused of many things since, such as that we should never teach children anything at all - when that has never been part of my argument. As a father I am all for education. It is when education steps into forced indoctrination that I have a problem.

I'm sure you feel a responsibility to not betray your daughter's trust in your word. Therefore you teach her things that you believe to be true.

Aside from the knowledge she has gained that I love her unequivocally - hell, even god could come down from his 2000 year slumber and I would slap him silly if he went near my girl, not really. Admittedly I don't get into things that I might not consider her old enough for. We do not go into politics.. the right or wrong of invading Iraq, whether Tony Blair is a good prime minister or not. To both of those I have a clear "belief", a clear opinion. I do not in any way whatsoever impart that opinion or belief on the mind of a person that is too young to even understand what a "Tony Blair" is or what part of her tiny world Iraq is in. I do not sit down and tell my daughter what sexual position is best, even though I have a "belief" or opinion concerning the subject. The reason I don't is because she's too young - because what I am imparting to her will not be understood. By that same token I do not tell her that Lenny the Leprechaun is master and chief of the universe and that's that. Although at some stage I can most likely advise her on these subjects. She can study, experience and test these things, it is not my place, indeed it is utterly immoral, to think I can force any of these things upon her - especially at a time where her mind is as fragile as it is.

I educate my daughter, yes.. There are limits, and there are distinct differences between education and forced indoctrination.

It is this same responsibility which drives the religious to indoctrinate their children with a belief in God. The two processes are in fact one and the same.

That's not an excuse. Although I will undoubtedly be accused of not being able to have an adult discussion, what you're saying is absolutely no different to an alcoholic saying it is his responsibility to indoctrinate his child with a belief that drinking alcohol is "cool".

Now, being a man that likes his drink, I have indeed 'asked' my daughter if she would like a sip, (which is completely legal in the UK - where any parent/guardian can give alcohol to a child over 5). She said no. She has seen what it does to people and understands the dangers and downside - all because of teaching, (my teaching). Yes, being able to point out the downside to something you personally 'believe' is quite beneficial. However, the ultimate choice lies with her - and that is the only way it should be. The 'teaching' is fine. It is the forcing that is the issue.

Most of you will or should know about the effects of force. "Do not smoke" leads to teenage smokers - because they have been forced. Quite often children forced into religion find themselves breaking free in their early teens - at great expense to themselves, (we've seen some on this very forum). But in these scenarios, the only thing missing is 'choice' for the children.

I have certainly found I am not the typical parent, (for starters I actually treat my daughter as an equal). Admittedly I did the same with my dog and that didn't work - he did need to know his place, and while I resent treating anything as lower than me there was really little choice with an animal that has really sharp teeth. It works perfectly with my daughter though. Given that she is an equal, I let her do whatever she wants. If she wants to have a cigarette then fine. Inside it's different.. I might not want her to smoke, marry a black man or use foul language in front of her mother, (examples, not specifically personal feelings) - but at the end of the day it isn't my life. I do not in any way have the right to tell her what to do or how to do it. Few will be able to say that their child has never done anything 'wrong', but I can. Ok, she has been a bit upset in the last couple of months with worry because we're expecting another child and she's used to being by herself, but when my friends said "terrible twos" and whatnot, I was the only person asking what that was.

She knows her place in the world specificially because I did not make her an Alan, Betty, Charlie or Daniel - but gave her the ability to be a part of all of them, if she so chooses.

I imagine your primary objection to this will be your assertion that your beliefs actually are true, but this ignores the possibility that you could be wrong about something.

Undoubtedly wrong about many things. It is literally impossible to persuade me that alcohol is not the best substance in the galaxy. I do not force my child to think the same. She can if she really wants to though, that's where I clearly differ to most.

Back to group cohesion. It's not that difficult to see how, in a religious community or family, religion plays a major factor in gluing the group together. A Jew among devout Catholics will have that much less in common. This doesn't mean that a child brought up with a different religion (or none at all) than the local norm will have no friends. I actually never claimed that; you assumed that I meant to imply it.

My apologies, perhaps I thought you were implying it with all the "no place in the world", "unwanted by the world", "trust nobody" and "miserable life" statements - which are all still unjustified. Also maybe worth pointing out, but it's typically the forcing of specific beliefs that will indeed make those catholics dislike their jewish neighbour, resulting in that alienation you speak of. The problem here is not lack of force, (open to different cultures/beliefs and systems), but indeed force itself.

Considering a child hasn't got the proper tools to find most things out for himself, he needs the parent to be a factual authority to give him a reliable foundation of knowledge. It is one of the crucial functions of parenting.

Once again let it be said that I have never disputed 'teaching'.

Good day.

P.S Apologies for any typos or whatever.

[Jaster Mereel]

Alright, since this is back on to reasonable discussion, I'd have to say that most parents don't necessarily "force" their children into religion. I made an observation earlier that I know people who are very close to me, who come from very religious families, and they weren't "forced" into believing what their parents believed. Yes, they were educated in a single religion, but I don't equate that with forced indoctrination.

Yes, grounding your child because they didn't want to go to church on sunday would be unreasonable, but sending your 5 year-old to a religious insitution to be educated in your religion (even if you don't expose them to other faiths) is not the same as punishing them for refusing to be a part of it. In no way have children in this position been "forced" into anything. They lacked the capacity to raise an objection. You may find this unreasonable or even disgusting, but it's a perfectly natural way for children to be raised, and the point I was trying to make was that this has always been the natural way to raise children. Many people's values in this area (who live in secular societies) would deviate considerably from the norm. I use the past as a precedent because it is perfectly reasonable to do so, given that everything we have now is a result of what has come before.

To tell you the truth, if I were to have a child I would probably raise him or her in the same manner which you have described raising your own child. I just don't consider the way that other people raise their children to be disgusting or unreasonable just because their value systems deviate from my own.

For the record, my username is "Jaster" not "Jester", just in case you thought it was a misspelling.

[SnakeLord]

Alright, since this is back on to reasonable discussion, I'd have to say that most parents don't necessarily "force" their children into religion. I made an observation earlier that I know people who are very close to me, who come from very religious families, and they weren't "forced" into believing what their parents believed. Yes, they were educated in a single religion, but I don't equate that with forced indoctrination.


Ok, I suppose from a 'normal' perspective things do not look all that bad, but there is a lot behind the scenes. In England there are many devout catholic schools, (boarding and standard). The teachers are nuns, the students don't get a say - and that's just one such example.

My niece goes to a devout jewish school, (the one I said was a whack job). She's like 5 years old and worrying that if she eats pork she'll get struck down. That is simply wrong, and where my concerns lie. I suppose there's a very fine line between "educated in a single religion", and no choice in what you will believe. I would personally advise teaching children about as encompassing a range as possible to prevent, (to quote Baum): "A Jew among devout Catholics will have that much less in common".

but sending your 5 year-old to a religious insitution to be educated in your religion (even if you don't expose them to other faiths) is not the same as punishing them for refusing to be a part of it.

See above. Are they really being done any favours at all? Are we breeding intolerance and division? Does a child taught only about Manchester United end up slapping a Newcastle fan because he was never given the benefits of knowing anything about Newcastle?

There are probably few things as dangerous as football and religion. There was an interesting observation made at a recent Star Trek convention. A journalist questioned one of the organisers who, after being asked some questions of this nature, responded that a Babylon 5 fan has never killed a Voyager fan. Religion does not work this way because of it's 'absolute right or wrong' core. There is no middle ground. A jew does not believe in jesus as divine and thus is wrong to a christian - no two ways about it. I think Voyager is the best of the Star Treks, you prefer Next Gen.. No harm done. You, (for sake of example), believe yhwh is the one and only god and I'm an atheist and it's an instant problem.

But religion doesn't even stop on what does or doesn't exist, but what a person can or cannot do. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for millennia, as have woman and black people etc etc. To give your children one understanding of what is and isn't, and what is and isn't right or moral is to promote discrimination, intolerance and hatred. Now just maybe blacks, women and homosexuals are disgusting vermin, but to even come close to a personal answer to that surely one must be taught a variety of worldviews as opposed to just one which is closed book on the matter? Life becomes like deal or no deal, but without the ability to say no deal.

A while back I had these two young jewish boys come to my house and start trying to preach to me, (which is actually quite rare for jews). While I will admit they seemingly knew everything about how to preach yhwh, they knew absolute diddly-squat about anything else. I found it positively sickening - and that is my beef.

For the record, my username is "Jaster" not "Jester", just in case you thought it was a misspelling

Apologies. For some reason I had the impression it was Jester.

[Godless]

Most people don't understand the subtle damage done to a child, by indoctrination, their parents whom may be devoutly religious see as an education in their way of life, thir religion, their beliefs of god, etc..

However the damage is done, in being lied to, in being deceived, by some delusional beliefs of ancient dogmatic people, their rhetoric is taken as literal truth, hence they then grow up to be like LG! completely delusional, and belief that those whom don't share his views, his religious beliefs are simply loss non-beliebers who need to be saved, who need to be taught, who he see's as misquided individuals. As if they had anything to guide anyone for a bette life! :o

[KennyJC]

I used to think of LG as a sort of intelligent person. He believed in God but was still to some degree rational. I think over the last months he has restricted himself to a handful of 'fool proof' analogies which he feels confident using. I think by restricting his arguments to these obviously erroneous analogies, he has insulted his own intelligence.

[lightgigantic]

I used to think of LG as a sort of intelligent person. He believed in God but was still to some degree rational. I think over the last months he has restricted himself to a handful of 'fool proof' analogies which he feels confident using. I think by restricting his arguments to these obviously erroneous analogies, he has insulted his own intelligence.

If it seems that I am repeating the same analogies its because you are repeating the same arguments - you are still yet to establish the clear method to enable a high school drop out to understand an electron
:D

[baumgarten]

If it seems that I am repeating the same analogies its because you are repeating the same arguments - you are still yet to establish the clear method to enable a high school drop out to understand an electron
:D
You could always come up with a different analogy to explain the same thing. It gets pretty annoying after just a few repetitions. (This high school drop out can still understand an electron, by the way. :p Actually I've never met a person who wasn't receptive to the concept, and that includes children in elementary school.)

[lightgigantic]

You could always come up with a different analogy to explain the same thing. It gets pretty annoying after just a few repetitions. (This high school drop out can still understand an electron, by the way. :p Actually I've never met a person who wasn't receptive to the concept, and that includes children in elementary school.)

Well I will draw up a some new analogies when I start getting some new arguments :D

- despite the number of time it comes up I still don't get any response how a person disqualified in afield of knowoledge due to attitude can come to the platform of perceiving the evidence .... I can't even Get Kenny to tell us how many scriptural works and commentaries he is familiar with when he makes his statements

[baumgarten]

Well I will draw up a some new analogies when I start getting some new arguments :D

- despite the number of time it comes up I still don't get any response how a person disqualified in afield of knowoledge due to attitude can come to the platform of perceiving the evidence .... I can't even Get Kenny to tell us how many scriptural works and commentaries he is familiar with when he makes his statements
But that's just a question of intellectual honesty. If someone has decided in advance what the conclusion of a discussion will be, then the point of discussing in the first place has been lost.

Unfortunately, most of us are guilty of that. A lot of discussions in Religion and elsewhere are exercises in futility from the first reply. SnakeLord and I were just previously convinced of our own rightness, and the result was an unproductive exchange of hostility and indignation. Then after a real attempt at clarification by each of us, I ended up agreeing with his point of view. Now that's progress, baby!

[lightgigantic]

OK then -

Kenny here are two q's for you

1 - How do you propose that person bereft of knowledge comes to the platform of perceiving the foundatins for such knolwedge when they have an obvious attitude against it?

2 - How many scriptural works and commentaries are you familiar with when you make your statements regarding religion?

[KennyJC]

Kenny here are two q's for you

1 - How do you propose that person bereft of knowledge comes to the platform of perceiving the foundatins for such knolwedge when they have an obvious attitude against it?

Well the first question is why do people know what it is they know? In science, this is easily answered. You are correct in saying that a person who has an emotional reaction against basic scientific facts such as evolution, or the Earth not being the center of the universe will discredit it without much need for understanding it. However, they are ignoring clear factual evidence as to why educated people believe this to be true. In essence, scientists are describing external (non-subjective) physical phenomena. Scientists don't start off with a previously held notion, if they do, it will often send them down the wrong path.

Now my question to you is that if a God exists, how do we perceive it? So far I have not heard any credible answer to this question and I will flat out refuse any subjective 'evidence'.

2 - How many scriptural works and commentaries are you familiar with when you make your statements regarding religion?

Well I had a robust faith based Catholic education. We had to go to church and sing hymns and all the rest. We were told of all the great stories in the Bible and had to read the Bible in class. I think as time went by I wondered why there was little evidence to support these grand claims like heaven and Jesus being the son of God (amongst other things), and never really thought about it much after that... Until that is, I got interested in science. I think what gives theists such a bad rep is that they contradict basic facts in science and not just that, but they have a history of being incredibly wrong at every new turn human knowledge and understanding takes which is why I'm sure remaining theistical notions will be proved wrong if they take place in the physical universe. Religion generally speaking is something theists pander to for emotional security and it appeals quite prolifically to their superstitious natures.

Once again you are emplying that the more one reads scripture or reads about scripture, the more qualified they are to judge it as factual or not. In which case, our agnostic theology professors who probably know more than you do, are non-believers... Why?

If it seems that I am repeating the same analogies its because you are repeating the same arguments - you are still yet to establish the clear method to enable a high school drop out to understand an electron

My point is your analogy is a copout. I could use the exact same analogy against anybody who refuted my tea-pot-orbiting-the-sun fantasy. It would also be easy to understand why people who refute my fantasy would always follow a similar line of argument. Do you see what I mean? You seriously need more substance to your arguments.

[Jaster Mereel]

Well the first question is why do people know what it is they know? In science, this is easily answered. You are correct in saying that a person who has an emotional reaction against basic scientific facts such as evolution, or the Earth not being the center of the universe will discredit it without much need for understanding it. However, they are ignoring clear factual evidence as to why educated people believe this to be true. In essence, scientists are describing external (non-subjective) physical phenomena. Scientists don't start off with a previously held notion, if they do, it will often send them down the wrong path.
Agreed.

Now my question to you is that if a God exists, how do we perceive it? So far I have not heard any credible answer to this question and I will flat out refuse any subjective 'evidence'.
And here, you've hit the limits of scientific inquiry. If you have to discount subjective experiences as evidence, than you cannot answer the question with either a "yes" or "no". However, it is still known that something is being experienced. The only thing you have to go on at that point is the word of the person who experienced it. Subjective phenomena aren't "delusions", they are simply things which exists differently to different people. The experiences which form the foundations of religion (not necessarily the beliefs which evolve around those experiences) are quite real, and to dismiss them wholesale because you can't accept subjective evidence seems rather shortsighted. I agree, science cannot and should not deal with subjective phenomena, but no one should ever assume that, just because it cannot be examined using the scientific method, that it mustn't be "real". It just has to be dealt with more carefully.

[geeser]

Kenny


According to such methodologies of "evidence" that you require the human mind doesn't even exist either - what do you think about that :eek:
BTW its a real shame that a scientist cannot get a nobel peace prize- maybe they could learn something : you really do need to do some research before you open you mouth
Linus Carl Pauling Chemist, chairman of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, as well as director of the Gates and Crellin Laboratories of Chemistry at California Institute of Technology.
Dr. Pauling was almost as well known to the American public as he was to the world's scientific community. He is the only person ever to receive two unshared Nobel Prizes — for Chemistry (1954) and for Peace (1962).
he died on Aug. 19, 1994, the world lost one of its greatest scientists and humanitarians

[lightgigantic]

you really do need to do some research before you open you mouth
Linus Carl Pauling Chemist, chairman of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, as well as director of the Gates and Crellin Laboratories of Chemistry at California Institute of Technology.
Dr. Pauling was almost as well known to the American public as he was to the world's scientific community. He is the only person ever to receive two unshared Nobel Prizes — for Chemistry (1954) and for Peace (1962).
he died on Aug. 19, 1994, the world lost one of its greatest scientists and humanitarians

It was more to discredit the claim that something like peace pales in comparison to the achievements of atoms and molecules etc