How do people become so brainwashed?
Discussion
Rawwr said:
I suspect if it was an international law that people couldn't choose a religion or belief system until they were 18 and deemed mentally competent to do so, all religion would probably die out in a few generations.
In terms of western religion, that's already happening. It's widely believed by those 'in the church' that they only have a generation or two left in them. Visit most churches and you'll find few people under 60.smn159 said:
ATG said:
You can't infer that. I'm a scientist by education, I'm an atheist, I see no inherent conflict.
It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.
One of the recurring themes of the weak criticism of religion is for an atheist to flick through a religious text, apply an interpretation that renders it as obvious nonsense, and then claim that his is the only possible interpretation one could reasonably apply to the text. Rather than ask someone what they actually believe, these critics tell people what they ought to believe and then tell them it is nonsense. And these critics usually think they're proponents of the scientific method.
The trap that you're falling into is to assume that the religious don't actually believe what they say they do.It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.
One of the recurring themes of the weak criticism of religion is for an atheist to flick through a religious text, apply an interpretation that renders it as obvious nonsense, and then claim that his is the only possible interpretation one could reasonably apply to the text. Rather than ask someone what they actually believe, these critics tell people what they ought to believe and then tell them it is nonsense. And these critics usually think they're proponents of the scientific method.
Since you're someone with scientific training I'd be interested to see your evidence for religious people being interested in purpose, meaning, love and understanding and not about making scientific statements about the physical world and not believing their creation myths.
For example - a quick Google suggests that in 2014 over 40% of Americans believed that God created humans in their current form less than 10,000 years ago. More than half of Americans believe that evolution is guided by God. These are clearly statements of how the world is / came into being and I'm sure that you can see the conflict here between science (and education) and religious belief. On this and other subjects - abortion, contraception, who gets aid - the religious are influencing decisions affecting peoples lives based on these creation myths.
"Since you're someone with scientific training I'd be interested to see your evidence for religious people being interested in purpose, meaning, love and understanding and not about making scientific statements about the physical world and not believing their creation myths." Seriously? Have you never been to a religious service of any kind? Let's assume you've heard a Christian sermon. Did it sound like a Physics lesson? Did it sound like a statement of mis-guided biology?? Come on. "God so loved the world that he gave his only son for us." "For give us our sins." "Covet not thy neighbour's Corsa". How many of the 10 commandments aren't about relationships, responsibilities and morality?
You can find morons everywhere. Their understanding of science will be risible. Their understanding of religion will be risible. You can't dismiss religious thinking by only referencing morons.
Rather than googling for stats, if you want to figure out what educated, thoughtful religious people think, you'd be better off talking to a vicar, rabbi, imam or anyone with more than three brain cells who takes their faith seriously. You can't escape the fact that a lot of highly intelligent, thoughtful, educated people have religious convictions. Whatever it is that they're thinking and believing, it'd be a teensy weensy bit arrogant to assume that it can be trivially dismissed. You may well on reflection think that they are wrong. I do. But you ought to reflect on what they say first.
ATG said:
"The trap that you're falling into is to assume that the religious don't actually believe what they say they do." <-- is that actually want you meant to say? To be clear, I'm saying that many of the "scientific" critics of religion haven't bothered to find out what religious people actually believe. I'm not falling into the trap of assuming people don't believe what they say they believe. I'm bothering to find out what they actually believe before judging their beliefs. How could one reasonably do anything else? It shouldn't need saying.
"Since you're someone with scientific training I'd be interested to see your evidence for religious people being interested in purpose, meaning, love and understanding and not about making scientific statements about the physical world and not believing their creation myths." Seriously? Have you never been to a religious service of any kind? Let's assume you've heard a Christian sermon. Did it sound like a Physics lesson? Did it sound like a statement of mis-guided biology?? Come on. "God so loved the world that he gave his only son for us." "For give us our sins." "Covet not thy neighbour's Corsa". How many of the 10 commandments aren't about relationships, responsibilities and morality?
You can find morons everywhere. Their understanding of science will be risible. Their understanding of religion will be risible. You can't dismiss religious thinking by only referencing morons.
Rather than googling for stats, if you want to figure out what educated, thoughtful religious people think, you'd be better off talking to a vicar, rabbi, imam or anyone with more than three brain cells who takes their faith seriously. You can't escape the fact that a lot of highly intelligent, thoughtful, educated people have religious convictions. Whatever it is that they're thinking and believing, it'd be a teensy weensy bit arrogant to assume that it can be trivially dismissed. You may well on reflection think that they are wrong. I do. But you ought to reflect on what they say first.
The core beliefs of Christians make a set of supernatural statements which anyone purporting to be a Christian is required to accept as true - dead people can come back to life, virgins can have children, a supernatural being 'created' the Earth, Gods word (and so the Bible) is 'inerrant'. "Since you're someone with scientific training I'd be interested to see your evidence for religious people being interested in purpose, meaning, love and understanding and not about making scientific statements about the physical world and not believing their creation myths." Seriously? Have you never been to a religious service of any kind? Let's assume you've heard a Christian sermon. Did it sound like a Physics lesson? Did it sound like a statement of mis-guided biology?? Come on. "God so loved the world that he gave his only son for us." "For give us our sins." "Covet not thy neighbour's Corsa". How many of the 10 commandments aren't about relationships, responsibilities and morality?
You can find morons everywhere. Their understanding of science will be risible. Their understanding of religion will be risible. You can't dismiss religious thinking by only referencing morons.
Rather than googling for stats, if you want to figure out what educated, thoughtful religious people think, you'd be better off talking to a vicar, rabbi, imam or anyone with more than three brain cells who takes their faith seriously. You can't escape the fact that a lot of highly intelligent, thoughtful, educated people have religious convictions. Whatever it is that they're thinking and believing, it'd be a teensy weensy bit arrogant to assume that it can be trivially dismissed. You may well on reflection think that they are wrong. I do. But you ought to reflect on what they say first.
Are you saying that the educated, thoughtful people that you've consulted don't believe these things? Or are you saying that they do believe them, but that the truth of these claims shouldn't be investigated but should be accepted as fact, 'just because'?
"How many of the 10 commandments aren't about relationships, responsibilities and morality"
Well here they are;
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Well the first 4 certainly aren't about those things - more about rules to get the faithful to toe the religious line.
The rest - OK, so you shouldn't kill people, steal stuff, covet other peoples stuff or commit adultery - oh, and be nice to your parents. Well no s
t Sherlock - do we really need religion to tell us these things? They just sound like rules that any civil society should adopt.I often listen to educated, thoughtful religious types on Beyond Belief on Radio 4, largely because I can't be arsed to change the channel, but virtually all of the discussions are along the lines of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Preposterous things asserted as facts and discussed earnestly - it's often jaw dropping stuff
alock said:
ATG said:
One of the recurring themes of the weak criticism of religion is for an atheist to flick through a religious text, apply an interpretation that renders it as obvious nonsense, and then claim that his is the only possible interpretation one could reasonably apply to the text. Rather than ask someone what they actually believe, these critics tell people what they ought to believe and then tell them it is nonsense. And these critics usually think they're proponents of the scientific method.
If you can justify different interpretations of a religious text, you are assuming the moral framework to make that judgement comes from outside the religious text.ATG said:
you'd be better off talking to a vicar, rabbi, imam or anyone with more than three brain cells who takes their faith seriously.
And there's the problem. No one should take their faith seriously. Faith is a believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you want to have faith, to help you thru life, go ahead and knock yourself out. But anyone with more than 3 brain cells should have the self awareness to realise that it's not evidence based and it's very possibly untrue. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be called faith. Having faith is a pretty dubious position to take, but taking it seriously is ridiculous.
Dr Jekyll said:
ATG said:
It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.
But religious statements were regarded as being factual until they were disproved. It's only after, for example, the evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old became overwhelming that the religious resorted to 'oh, but it's allegorical'.It's also risky to say that "religious statements were regarded as being factual" without qualifying it with a "some" up front. There are plenty of scriptural statements that are clearly not factual in any sense. There's plenty of poetry, deliberate double-meaning, open questions and clear statements that lots of stuff is unknown or unknowable. Faith relies heavily on acceptance of mystery, acceptance that lack of perfect knowledge, lack of perfect understanding is fundamental to our existence. Faith is not about being given a simple guide to the nature of things, and that's why fixating on those aspects of a religion to try to dismiss it is so patently silly. It's like criticising Arsenal's choice of boot laces rather than addressing their general ineptness.
joshcowin said:
I mean just out of interest, were there lions and tigers? why couldn't they eat grass? why are you right and have all the answers and they don't?
You obviously like people respecting your opinion why cant you respect theirs? Also calling them 'Jehovah's witless' is pathetic would you call a Muslim a derogatory name?
Should we respect the opinions of people that believe 2 + 2 = 5?You obviously like people respecting your opinion why cant you respect theirs? Also calling them 'Jehovah's witless' is pathetic would you call a Muslim a derogatory name?
smn159 said:
ATG said:
"The trap that you're falling into is to assume that the religious don't actually believe what they say they do." <-- is that actually want you meant to say? To be clear, I'm saying that many of the "scientific" critics of religion haven't bothered to find out what religious people actually believe. I'm not falling into the trap of assuming people don't believe what they say they believe. I'm bothering to find out what they actually believe before judging their beliefs. How could one reasonably do anything else? It shouldn't need saying.
"Since you're someone with scientific training I'd be interested to see your evidence for religious people being interested in purpose, meaning, love and understanding and not about making scientific statements about the physical world and not believing their creation myths." Seriously? Have you never been to a religious service of any kind? Let's assume you've heard a Christian sermon. Did it sound like a Physics lesson? Did it sound like a statement of mis-guided biology?? Come on. "God so loved the world that he gave his only son for us." "For give us our sins." "Covet not thy neighbour's Corsa". How many of the 10 commandments aren't about relationships, responsibilities and morality?
You can find morons everywhere. Their understanding of science will be risible. Their understanding of religion will be risible. You can't dismiss religious thinking by only referencing morons.
Rather than googling for stats, if you want to figure out what educated, thoughtful religious people think, you'd be better off talking to a vicar, rabbi, imam or anyone with more than three brain cells who takes their faith seriously. You can't escape the fact that a lot of highly intelligent, thoughtful, educated people have religious convictions. Whatever it is that they're thinking and believing, it'd be a teensy weensy bit arrogant to assume that it can be trivially dismissed. You may well on reflection think that they are wrong. I do. But you ought to reflect on what they say first.
The core beliefs of Christians make a set of supernatural statements which anyone purporting to be a Christian is required to accept as true - dead people can come back to life, virgins can have children, a supernatural being 'created' the Earth, Gods word (and so the Bible) is 'inerrant'. "Since you're someone with scientific training I'd be interested to see your evidence for religious people being interested in purpose, meaning, love and understanding and not about making scientific statements about the physical world and not believing their creation myths." Seriously? Have you never been to a religious service of any kind? Let's assume you've heard a Christian sermon. Did it sound like a Physics lesson? Did it sound like a statement of mis-guided biology?? Come on. "God so loved the world that he gave his only son for us." "For give us our sins." "Covet not thy neighbour's Corsa". How many of the 10 commandments aren't about relationships, responsibilities and morality?
You can find morons everywhere. Their understanding of science will be risible. Their understanding of religion will be risible. You can't dismiss religious thinking by only referencing morons.
Rather than googling for stats, if you want to figure out what educated, thoughtful religious people think, you'd be better off talking to a vicar, rabbi, imam or anyone with more than three brain cells who takes their faith seriously. You can't escape the fact that a lot of highly intelligent, thoughtful, educated people have religious convictions. Whatever it is that they're thinking and believing, it'd be a teensy weensy bit arrogant to assume that it can be trivially dismissed. You may well on reflection think that they are wrong. I do. But you ought to reflect on what they say first.
Are you saying that the educated, thoughtful people that you've consulted don't believe these things? Or are you saying that they do believe them, but that the truth of these claims shouldn't be investigated but should be accepted as fact, 'just because'?
"How many of the 10 commandments aren't about relationships, responsibilities and morality"
Well here they are;
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Well the first 4 certainly aren't about those things - more about rules to get the faithful to toe the religious line.
The rest - OK, so you shouldn't kill people, steal stuff, covet other peoples stuff or commit adultery - oh, and be nice to your parents. Well no s
t Sherlock - do we really need religion to tell us these things? They just sound like rules that any civil society should adopt.I often listen to educated, thoughtful religious types on Beyond Belief on Radio 4, largely because I can't be arsed to change the channel, but virtually all of the discussions are along the lines of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Preposterous things asserted as facts and discussed earnestly - it's often jaw dropping stuff
And did you manage to find any of the 10 commandments that was making any claims about the nature of the physical world? No.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ATG said:
you'd be better off talking to a vicar, rabbi, imam or anyone with more than three brain cells who takes their faith seriously.
And there's the problem. No one should take their faith seriously. Faith is a believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you want to have faith, to help you thru life, go ahead and knock yourself out. But anyone with more than 3 brain cells should have the self awareness to realise that it's not evidence based and it's very possibly untrue. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be called faith. Having faith is a pretty dubious position to take, but taking it seriously is ridiculous.
ATG said:
And did you manage to find any of the 10 commandments that was making any claims about the nature of the physical world? No.
Straw man alert! - you suggested that they were all about relationships and morality and I was replying to that!Oh, and are you sure that it's Christians that you're having these discussions with and not some vague / woolly 'spiritualists'?
One of the most interesting points I've discovered over my few years on this planet is that people who were never taught scientific principles really don't understand scientific principles - they can't comprehend 'science'. It's not just the religious or scientifically educated - the socialists are just as bad.
Like wise I've discovered that people that weren't taught (or perhaps rejected) religious teaching that adopt a scientific view point are equally as blinkered.
I think the most fundamental change in my thought processes about these issues occurred when I'd spent a bit of time in the Buddhist Monasteries in Nepal.
I'd say I am 100% atheist in terms of Western & Middle East religious doctrine, I find Christianity ridiculous,
Islam even more so. Sufi is off the charts. Zen is a bit weird but it does have a defined path.
Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism are really at a different league, mainly I think because they verge on the point of becoming a philosophy not a religion.
So to the layman, these Buddhist teachings (might) tell you more about how your mind works, and does not simply set out a set of rules that should be blindly accepted.
Like wise I've discovered that people that weren't taught (or perhaps rejected) religious teaching that adopt a scientific view point are equally as blinkered.
I think the most fundamental change in my thought processes about these issues occurred when I'd spent a bit of time in the Buddhist Monasteries in Nepal.
I'd say I am 100% atheist in terms of Western & Middle East religious doctrine, I find Christianity ridiculous,
Islam even more so. Sufi is off the charts. Zen is a bit weird but it does have a defined path.
Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism are really at a different league, mainly I think because they verge on the point of becoming a philosophy not a religion.
So to the layman, these Buddhist teachings (might) tell you more about how your mind works, and does not simply set out a set of rules that should be blindly accepted.
I found this very interesting, loves the bible as a historical book, but weighs up the truths and the fiction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xVBldyy_Oo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xVBldyy_Oo
Dagnir said:
You seem to draw wild conclusions based on comments that aren't present, as opposed to relying on the facts statements written in front of you.
I don't usually get drawn into these things but it just struck me as I read each of your posts that you didn't actually address the main point of the post you were replying to.
'facts' to 'statements': my edit.I don't usually get drawn into these things but it just struck me as I read each of your posts that you didn't actually address the main point of the post you were replying to.
Thank you, and I apologies for my delay in replying.
A lack of immediate opportunity, followed by a browser crash containing my initial reply.
In an effort to avoid being accused of completing a course at the Maggy Thatcher 'School of Responding to Interview Questions', I will do my best.
Allow me to deal with Example 3 first
I realise that you presented them in chronological order, but clearly the context in which I was replying to the first two was lost in translation.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
can't remember said:
Terrible logic on display here. The burden of proof remains with the believer. The prove I'm wrong method of debate should be left in the playground.
At no point did I ask anyone to believe in anything.I am sure that most people (including myself) are perfectly capable of guiding their soul (if we have one) straight to Hell (if it exists), without my assistance, encouragement or advice.
I accept no 'burden of proof' as I accept no responsibility for the independent actions of others.
p1stonhead said:
Its as simple as;
Religious - I believe there is a god.
Atheist - Do you have any proof?
Religious - No.
Atheist - I dont believe you then.
To which I added;Religious - I believe there is a god.
Atheist - Do you have any proof?
Religious - No.
Atheist - I dont believe you then.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Religious - Prove I am wrong.
Atheist - Scientifically impossible
Religious - If you can't prove it (your test), you believe that I am wrong, and now we have reached a point which we can agree upon;
We both believe in (or 'not in' if you prefer) something we can not prove.
There is no further need for conflict between us on this point. Can I buy you a beer?
Let's look at this statement by statement;Atheist - Scientifically impossible
Religious - If you can't prove it (your test), you believe that I am wrong, and now we have reached a point which we can agree upon;
We both believe in (or 'not in' if you prefer) something we can not prove.
There is no further need for conflict between us on this point. Can I buy you a beer?
"Religious - I believe there is a god." - Not the way any conversation I have ever had on the subject has begun
"Atheist - Do you have any proof?" - Quite clearly the religious person has only stated their belief, not suggested anyone else must believe what they believe.
"Religious - No."
"Atheist - I dont believe you then." - Our atheist is quite clearly stating that they don't believe in the Religious person's belief. Be that as it may, many will assume from the context, if not the phrasing, that the atheist's lack of belief in God is being stated.
"Religious - Prove I am wrong." - Reword that as "Are you able to prove I am wrong?" and the purpose of the response is clearer (my mistake in the initial response)
"Atheist - Scientifically impossible" - most people accept that this currently can not be proven by science method, though we all accept that logical argument will generally lead to the conclusion that the existence of a deity can not be, or at least has not been proven.
"Religious - If you can't prove it (your test), you believe that I am wrong, and now we have reached a point which we can agree upon;
We both believe in (or 'not in' if you prefer) something we can not prove.
There is no further need for conflict between us on this point. Can I buy you a beer?"
The last sentences are a bit clumsy as well, but the point should be clear; Religious is not requiring a belief in God from Atheist and is making no effort to convince Atheist to believe. Indeed whether it is apparent or not, Religious has no interest in pursuing such a debate, perhaps out of respect for the personal convictions of Atheist, or simply because Religious already understands it is a debate with no end.
The conversation could just as easily occured (from start to finish) as;
"Atheist - I don't believe in God"
"Religious - Can I buy you a beer?"
Now to the example response;
Goaty Bill 2 said:
can't remember said:
Terrible logic on display here. The burden of proof remains with the believer. The prove I'm wrong method of debate should be left in the playground.
At no point did I ask anyone to believe in anything.I am sure that most people (including myself) are perfectly capable of guiding their soul (if we have one) straight to Hell (if it exists), without my assistance, encouragement or advice.
I accept no 'burden of proof' as I accept no responsibility for the independent actions of others.
Dagnir said:
Example 4
You've jumped from not being taught Religion until you're 18 to...
There was a lot of context lost there.You've jumped from not being taught Religion until you're 18 to...
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Surely no one would, as a matter of general principal, wish the state to become responsible for teaching their children their moral codes, to the exclusion of anything the parents may believe?
That is just too Orwellian to imagine...
That is just too Orwellian to imagine...
The suggestion at one point was outlawing the teaching of religion to children;
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Skyrat said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Rawwr said:
I suspect if it was an international law that people couldn't choose a religion or belief system until they were 18 and deemed mentally competent to do so, all religion would probably die out in a few generations.
Anything you say comrade Stalin.Dagnir said:
...but if they weren't ever introduced to Religion as a concept, would it naturally take that form?
I suspect not and certainly not now, in this age of scientific understanding.
To quote one Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion: "There are no Catholic* children, only children of Catholic parents".I suspect not and certainly not now, in this age of scientific understanding.
(*insert religion)
Stalin outlawed the teaching of any religion to children under the age of 18; his specific target being the Russian Orthodox church.
But children were taught atheism in school, and to be anti-theist, even to snoop and report on people they thought to be religious, including their own families.
Surely no one would, as a matter of general principal, wish the state to become responsible for teaching their children their moral codes, to the exclusion of anything the parents may believe?
That is just too Orwellian to imagine...
In the context of the three posts, I don't see how my point could be missed?
The logical conclusion to a ruling that parents are forbidden to teach their own children their own moral codes and beliefs, is that the state / schools will take on that responsibility.
That really is Orwellian, exactly what Stalin implemented (as far as he could), and only a short step from that to Huxley's Platonian dystopia where children are parentless and raised entirely by the state.
Huxley was clearly no stranger to Plato's 'Republic'.
I also later said, in more direct response to Skyrat's post;
"There are no anti-theist children, just children of anti-theist parents."
Children are taught to dislike or campaign against religion.
They may also decide to do it for themselves later as adults, but it's far from being a default position.
One might choose to refer to it (the default) as atheism.
We learn a great deal from our environment. Our parents, schooling, friends, news, entertainment television, films, magazines etc etc.
As young children we 'know' nothing, but young children certainly ask a lot of questions.
"How?" and "why?" being two of the favourites that I recall
If they don't get answers, they go looking for them.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The logical conclusion to a ruling that parents are forbidden to teach their own children their own moral codes and beliefs, is that the state / schools will take on that responsibility.
I'm aware that we are derailing the thread here, so I will attempt a condensed example. Hopefully this highlights my point about jumping to conclusions and then basing arguments on said incorrect conclusions.With regards to your sentance above; the original sattement referenced not teaching religion to children. You have have come away with not being allowed to teach your children morals and thus you have concluded that the state would have to take responsibilty.
Do you see how that is a massive leap and as it is based on a fallacy, almost irrelevant to initial point?
Dagnir said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The logical conclusion to a ruling that parents are forbidden to teach their own children their own moral codes and beliefs, is that the state / schools will take on that responsibility.
I'm aware that we are derailing the thread here, so I will attempt a condensed example. Hopefully this highlights my point about jumping to conclusions and then basing arguments on said incorrect conclusions.With regards to your sentance above; the original sattement referenced not teaching religion to children. You have have come away with not being allowed to teach your children morals and thus you have concluded that the state would have to take responsibilty.
Do you see how that is a massive leap and as it is based on a fallacy, almost irrelevant to initial point?
One assumes the vast majority of them weren't behaving in that manner even before they got told not to by god. As a tribe they appeared to have worked out a moral code based on their innate humanity.
Dagnir said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The logical conclusion to a ruling that parents are forbidden to teach their own children their own moral codes and beliefs, is that the state / schools will take on that responsibility.
I'm aware that we are derailing the thread here, so I will attempt a condensed example. Hopefully this highlights my point about jumping to conclusions and then basing arguments on said incorrect conclusions.With regards to your sentance above; the original sattement referenced not teaching religion to children. You have have come away with not being allowed to teach your children morals and thus you have concluded that the state would have to take responsibilty.
Do you see how that is a massive leap and as it is based on a fallacy, almost irrelevant to initial point?
Rawwr said:
I suspect if it was an international law that people couldn't choose a religion or belief system until they were 18 and deemed mentally competent to do so, all religion would probably die out in a few generations.
You could argue that I incorrectly conflated the two statements.It is true that I did not directly address your statement, but I had already done so in a previous reply, which you question in your 'Example 1' to which I have not yet replied.
Your statement had, to my mind already been addressed, and I was in fact replying to Skyrat, though I confess to conflating all the statements in formulating my reply.
Do you not see how one might do that?
I confess also to being highly distrustful of any suggestions that resemble attempts to restrict freedom of expression (including speech), neo-Marxism, Fascism, totalitarianism/dictatorships of any kind, or state indoctrination, especially of children.
Let's try a different tact.
Can parents teach morals to their children without involing religion? Yes of course they can but you imply they can't.
Given the two facts above, how did you reach the conclusion that not teaching religion to children, makes the state wholly responsible for teaching them morals?
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The logical conclusion to a ruling that parents are forbidden to teach their own children their own moral codes and beliefs, is that the state / schools will take on that responsibility.
Can morals exist without religion? Yes of course they can but your statement implies the opposite. Can parents teach morals to their children without involing religion? Yes of course they can but you imply they can't.
Given the two facts above, how did you reach the conclusion that not teaching religion to children, makes the state wholly responsible for teaching them morals?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly, and moral codes can be held and taught without religion. Has anyone ever wondered how the Israelites held together as a society long enough for Moses to pick up the 10 commandments, if they were all stealing from each other and murdering each other and fornicating with each other's wives.
One assumes the vast majority of them weren't behaving in that manner even before they got told not to by god. As a tribe they appeared to have worked out a moral code based on their innate humanity.
The hands of Hitchins and Dawkins are as obvious as... well, you know... One assumes the vast majority of them weren't behaving in that manner even before they got told not to by god. As a tribe they appeared to have worked out a moral code based on their innate humanity.
A Hebrew Bible story that gives an origin for the formal codification of early Hebrew law.
At no point, to my knowledge, is there any claim in the Bible, that no laws or common code of ethics existed prior to this occurrence.
H&D would be quite correct in their assumption that there must have been laws. They simply wanted people to see it for something other than it was.
I doubt that anyone would assert that prior to Hammurabi, the Babylonians had no laws?
Theologians have debated this over time and made numerous references to this, and supplied a number of explanations. Take your pick; some of them are pretty far out.
H&D were frankly quite ingenuous IMO in suggesting it was some fundamental belief of Christianity or Judaism that there were no laws before Moses, though you will likely find a few people out there that do believe it to be the case.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff