How do people become so brainwashed?
Discussion
Dagnir said:
Let's try a different tact.
Can parents teach morals to their children without involving 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?
Lets 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 involving 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?
I don't deny either your first or second statement, up to the points where you say, "but your statement implies the opposite." and "Yes of course they can but you imply they can't." respectively.
I don't think I imply that at all, not even accidentally.
If you think I have, then I assure you I did not intend to, but I do believe that you are mistaken.
What I think you are ignoring is that my quote above is principally a response to the much earlier suggestion;
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.
It has been a fundamental principal of many totalitarian Marxist regimes (Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, Socialist People's Republic of Albania, People's Republic of Kampuchea...) that children will not be taught theistic (and often other) religions/beliefs.Marx was an anti-theist, often incorrectly described simply as an atheist. He openly despised religions, and had a good deal to say about them.
Indeed, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP/Nazis) also took a strong line against Christianity in particular, as being too soft and 'all inclusive', and particularly as failing as a principal to accept the need for racial purity.
I am not aware of them actually attempting to ban it, but is was openly sneered at (for the reasons I've listed), and known practising Christians were unlikely to be promoted into higher offices.
These are the very recent examples of the implementation of that kind of policy.
In all of these examples, the indoctrination of children with 'good party principals and morals' was of the highest priority.
I don't suggest that it automatically "makes the state responsible"; it has been well demonstrated in modern history that the state will bloody well make itself responsible.
Now;
-"Can morals exist without religion?" - Of course.
-"Can parents teach morals to their children without involving religion?" - of course.
The debate on relativistic vs deterministic moral codes and behaviour, while a fascinating one, should probably be left for another time
Just to be clear. Your post:
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.
...Was in your Example 1I suspect not and certainly not now, in this age of scientific understanding.
I haven't got to that as yet (or Example 2).
I have made a start though
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Friday 3rd March 13:49
Goaty Bill 2 said:
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.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
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.
There had to have been some kind of 'law' or moral code upon which people agreed (probably tribe by tribe), and that Moses was simply being credited with the codification.
The last sentence without a doubt holds a great deal of truth as well to be fair.
A lot of people make inflated claims for the contribution of religions, but... I also think a lot of people are too quick to discount those contributions.
One aspect might be relativistic vs deterministic moral codes and behaviour.
Another aspect might be that the dominant religions are likely more responsible for the unifying of laws and moral codes than any other influence in times past.
TheExcession said:
I particularly appreciated the perspectives of yours and and Derek's posts on the last page.Dagnir said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
More diversary diversory statements....
Cool. I'm done, thanks for your time I have failed to make myself clear it seems. Sorry
The challenge was appreciated nonetheless.
Even if my ideas and arguments require improved articulation, it has increased my own understanding of what they should be.
TheExcession said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
TheExcession said:
I particularly appreciated the perspectives of yours and and Derek's posts on the last page.Dr Jekyll said:
A classic to be sure 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?
Are we not forgetting that grass is alive as well and eating it would cause it to die?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?
Vizsla said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Vizsla said:
Rough transcript of a discussion I had with a Jehovah's Witless :
Me: Isn't there something in the bible about there being no death and suffering in the world before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge? (I paraphrase)
JW: Yes, that's correct
Me: So what did all the lions and tigers eat then?
JW: Grass (straight face)
Me:
Yes, there's a funny side to it, but mainly I just think it's actually incredibly sad. The lack of critical thinking is the biggest threat o mankind I fear. Me: Isn't there something in the bible about there being no death and suffering in the world before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge? (I paraphrase)
JW: Yes, that's correct
Me: So what did all the lions and tigers eat then?
JW: Grass (straight face)
Me:
The text was written from the point of view of a tribe that saw their ups and downs as being due to their deity's mood.
It is never interpreted like this today so it makes no sense.
The original authors would be utterly flummoxed by the way both those JWs and you read their text!
For example:
Adam and eve were the first people = Our tribe's founders were called Adam and Eve
There was no sin before Adam and Eve = Anything before our tribe's founders isn't relevant
The way back to Eden is barred by a sword of fire = We fled a volcanic eruption
Noah put two of every kind on the Ark = Noah put breading pairs of the tribes farm animals on the Ark (anything outside the tribal ownership isn't relevant! )
It's actually a fairly straight forward ancient history when its read the way it was actually written!
Children don't need to think about school and careers....let God decide!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYRcQh68M8&yt...
Cancer? Not a problem any longer!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DuOMvNNeHo&yt...
This stuff needs banning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYRcQh68M8&yt...
Cancer? Not a problem any longer!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DuOMvNNeHo&yt...
This stuff needs banning.
cymtriks said:
It's actually a fairly straight forward ancient history when its read the way it was actually written!
Not really.Two people are in captivity, well treated but not allowed to make any decisions for themselves. As a result of gaining knowledge they are released and have access to an whole world rather than just a small garden and are encouraged to have lots of sex (something they didn't previously know about) in order to populate it.
Yet the moral is that this release is actually a punishment because gaining knowledge is somehow bad.
Dr Jekyll said:
Not really.
Two people are in captivity, well treated but not allowed to make any decisions for themselves. As a result of gaining knowledge they are released and have access to an whole world rather than just a small garden and are encouraged to have lots of sex (something they didn't previously know about) in order to populate it.
Yet the moral is that this release is actually a punishment because gaining knowledge is somehow bad.
You are focusing on a specific interpretation of a very small part of a very big story.Two people are in captivity, well treated but not allowed to make any decisions for themselves. As a result of gaining knowledge they are released and have access to an whole world rather than just a small garden and are encouraged to have lots of sex (something they didn't previously know about) in order to populate it.
Yet the moral is that this release is actually a punishment because gaining knowledge is somehow bad.
The interpretation you give is only the one commonly taught today, in the past other interpretations of the Eden story existed. In one the Eden god was actually evil in disguise and the snake was good, "saving" Adam and Eve by giving them knowledge. They perceived him as a snake in Eden due to their complete lack of understanding. The true God was then discovered gradually during their adventures over the generations, the perception becoming human with the arrival of Jesus.
In either case the account is based on historical events, it has simply had a creation myth interwoven with the life of the tribal founders. Seen from a tribal point of view this is actually how it would be.
Strip away the myth and you, rather obviously to anyone actually, get the following:
Adam and Eve are the tribal founders
The first settlement is in a sheltered place (that's the actual meaning of "garden")
Their first two kids fight and Cain marries outside the tribe
A volcano (am angel put a sword of fire into the sky) erupts and the land becomes impossible to farm
They become refugees in Babylon
They are involved in a large construction project that falls down
A local leader rescues his people from a big flood (one actually happened in 2900BC that covered half of Iraq)
etc
The addition of "God's will" or "God's judgement" and bits of myth is just the way a bronze age tribe told their history, it doesn't make any of it wrong. The way we tell our history would equally seem a bit odd to them.
That's it. A tribal history told the way an ancient tribe would tell it. The myth bits and the case for divine intervention is something you either believe or don't. The history is just history which is actually nearly all of it.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff