Printable View
Too much censorship on these boards.
-------------------------------------------
MODERATOR'S NOTE: The OP decided to edit out his previously-submitted content for reasons of his own. However, in the interest of reader continuity, and in light of the fact that several other posters have contributed to this project, here is the restored original content:
~KukriQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
*Forcing* it is wrong. *Teaching* it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Human mind can't do much if it has no information to work with. Introducing a child to a religion provides the child with the necessary information to make the correct decision on whether or not to follow any particular creed.Quote:
If the [being] of the child in his life would wish to seek a spiritual life, would it not be best to let this [being] do it on his own? Find his own way?
Too much censorship on these boards.
Your premise is also debateable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Teaching is just that: teaching. It does not involve any coercement. As far as age goes, it doesn't really matter. If the child is old enough to absorb the information he'll absorb it, otherwise he'll just shrug it off. At 4 the child is unlikely to comrehend much of what religion is all about, beyond the most rudimentary things. For example, my daughter is 3.5 y.o. and to her Jesus == cross. So, A cross is Jesus, and a plus sign is Jesus. She knows that Jesus is something positive and that's good enough for me. Obviously, I won't discuss theology with her until she has reached the appropriate age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Too much censorship on these boards.
Tabula rasa theory is simply false.
Too much censorship on these boards.
Indoctrination? Hardly. It's merely a parent sharing his worldview with his child. As far as Jesus not being positive for everybody, if you want to stick to that as your guiding principle as far as what should be taught to children, then there will be pretty much nothing left to teach, since just about any idea will findan opponent somewhere in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
imho yes but I am an atheist which kinda can be a religion of it's own when it comes to evangelistic behaviour, a religious person is usually far more respectful of atheism then an atheist if of religion and I keep that in mind, I think teaching someone about their religion is a better thing then teaching them to destroy it wherever they happen to find it.
Too much censorship on these boards.
No, you're not. At least not prove-ably. Actually, you make the point for 'the other side' that a human is not a blank slate, but rather has a seeming instinct (among other instincts, or tendancies) to seek some "bigger than me" explanation for existence. This instinct validated by the widespread and varied search for gods world-wide by humans of all races, cultures and times. Only the details vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Nothing, obviously. At her age she can recognize the defining symbol of Christianity, and that is good enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Human species is completely devoid of any instincts whatsoever. At least of anything that can be scientifically defined as an instinct. We do have some basic drives, but those do not qualify as instincts.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
You sound quite certain of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
100% certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Mental abuse? No, that would be demening a label for something very serious.
Indoctrination? Yes, but this can be said of just about everything a parent tells their children, starting with political views, then moral views, then a general worldview, etc, etc.
I was born into a family that was half Jewish, half Baptist and I was raised a non-practising Baptist. I don't begrudge my parents one bit for raising me that way - they were doing what they thought was right and through an education that encouraged individual thought I came ot my own conclusion that God does not exist. I only recently told my Father, and he was fine with it and commented "I feel I gave you a good moral basis to make your own decisions."
So I don't know where I am going with this, but something to chew on I guess.
What might those be? Is there a definitive list?Quote:
We do have some basic drives...
That wouldn't be preparing them for a society where religion just happens to exist. I am not a father mind you, I would teach them to always hold a respectable distance, I hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Ideally a child should be informed in unbiased and rational way about the different world views and spiritual/philosophical positions in the world, and then be allowed to form his or hers own opinion.
but as we know the world is not perfect and this will not happen......religion and dogma is too engrained into our societies for it not to affect a child.
as for mental abuse?....I think you can find examples where I would use that world, like people that have extreme religious views and push that on their children causing them to live lives that are limited in so many ways....
But the average non-fanatical religious person that raises his children acording to his faith...I wouldn´t call that abuse....that´s an exageration.
Myself I was raised as a catholic, I was baptized, did first communion.....I don´t think I was mentally abused.....hey I even went to school in a catholic school for 4 years (and I wasn´t abused there either :laugh4:) but when I got to the age I could think clearly about it I threw the religion aside pretty easily and became more of an atheist
In summation....moderate religious upgringing is no more mental abuse than telling a child there is a Santa Claus or a easter bunny.....or reading them Grimm's fairytales.
The usual stuff...foraging, safety, shelter. The very basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Long story short, in order for a drive to be called an instinct, it has to be followed by every member of the species at all (applicable) times. There's quite literally *no* aspect of human behavior that can meet this condition. So, things like self-preservation that might *seem* like an instinct, actually do not qualify.
The lack of self-preservation might be an instinct, we are social creatures. There has never been a society without religion, religion is probably the most basic codification of law, since religions have the same themes everywhere the same rules are in place everywhere. How do you explain that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Too much censorship on these boards.
Don't we? Religions always arise in organised society's, when man has to deal with man. All cultures have some variety of celebrating harvest and festivity for example, pretty basic if you intend to be alive, I would call the harvest and reproduction celebrations a product of our instincts, pretty basic instincts, it's just how we deal with it without getting killed. Everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
To put it mild, if you believe in God here, you are seen as the village idiot.
In towns perhaps but towns are not the villages, scandinavia is a very very very christian place it puts our biblebelt to shame.
You said that your mother believed in God. Is she seen as the village idiot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Too much censorship on these boards.
So....in a free, democratic and supposedly tolerant society people have to hide their religious affiliation? Is this really the standard the human civilization should strive for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
don´t start getting on the "we are persecuted" stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
people don´t have to hide anything...it´s not like you will be put in jail or anything.
but if someone comes out and tells me that they believe in the bible....literally.....I´m gonna laugh in their face.....is this persecution????.....don´t be ridiculous.
That isn't the definition of instinct. Also, when babies go in the swimming pool they instinctively hold their breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Teaching religion is not mental abuse. If the parents are open minded rather than fanatical then no harm will come of teaching their children about religion or anything else. Some of them do have a "I must make my child a devout christian or else they will burn in hell" attitude unfortunately. As rvg said, just teach em a few things at a young age they'll still want to be like their parents, and at an older age they'll reject it if you push them towards it. That's the problem with religions that have a "hell" of some sort though, parents feel like it is urgent that their child follow the religion instead of letting them go their own way and just teaching them the moral principles.
If you have to hide something that you believe is right, then there's clearly some kind of retribution that the society imposes on those who profess the given belief. Otherwise there would be no reason to hide it. Unless the person is really, really, *REALLY* shy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Nobody's talking about you. Kadagar's talking about having any religious belief makes you an abusive parent. But yeah, we're paranoid...:dizzy2:
Not more than any other teaching of morals/ethics IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
If this already qualifies as mental abuse I guess parents would have to limit themselves to keeping their kids alive by feeding them* and otherwise let them discover everything by themseolves
* although they should not force any specific food on them - just let these little empty-minded buggers find out for themselves what food they prefer ~;)
the comment I was replying to wasn´t about the original question....go read the back posts again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
but even on that aspect....Kadagar placed a question....the majority if not all people that replied disagreed (myself included).....so I still don´t see the persecution......1 person having a negative opinion of you does not make you persecuted.
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's not a negative opinion, its a call to action. Maybe the term child abuse means something different in Portugal, but in the US, saying religious households are abusive implies that children in religious households should be removed and taken into custody by the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Rvg responded to Kadagar, not you. You responded to him, saying "nobody's persecuting you". I responded you aren't, but Kadagar's implying religious people should have their children taken away from them.
Mental abuse... no, well the really crazy fanatical ones probably cross over into that terroritory but i would put everything else down to indoctrination of young impressionable minds...
I hate to invoke godwin here and i am not linking hitler to any religion (read the previous sentence over a few times if you start to get angy..)
When hitler set up his youth camps he had the majority of the german youth eating out of his hand, so if a stranger with a bit of power can brainwash children so easily, then two parents simply telling bible storys, taking thier kids to church and just speaking of thier own personal faith could permentantly convince the child of his religion with no critical/abstract or spiritual thought of his own...
Don now you are reading well too much into it... persucution complex possibly ? i now how badly you majority's are treated in america :wink:
I think kag was simply asking is indoctrinating your kid to believe as you do a form of mental abuse, i saw no calls for children of the religious to be taken away, kag is a child of someone religious himself (did he say in this topic ?)
I see. So in the UK, Sweden and Austria, it's common practice to leave children in abusive households? I must have missed that factoid... was probably busy reading Goebbels to Jillian.
By the way, I love your pre-defense :laugh4: In the same spirit, I don't mean to call anybody here an idiot, but well, you know, idiots invoke Godwin's law to tarnish every viewpoint that disagrees with their limited worldview. :laugh4:
Indeed -critical thought is something that hardly ever is being taught to children. Well, receive information with a critical mind, but never ever think critically of what I have taught you. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Yes, we have an instinct to look to other humans for confirmation on how well you are doing. You have someone you respect, and if you are unsure about your views, and persons whom you respect are opposed to them; you'll also be more critically inclined to your own views. Kadagar raises an important point here; the average persons live with absolute truths it has encountered through life; thus reflecting where it grew up. Americans from the US, Germans from Germany. It's no big secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Not really. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar
-----
Question to the OP: could it be more wrong to tell children about religion than to instill in them what's "right" and what's "wrong"? Methinks not, the line would be arbitrary. What would you want children to be taught?
That's a weird world view. We are, after all, just very clever primates and primates do have instincts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The survival instinct. The procreation instinct. The altruist instinct etc, etc. The last one is the instinct that keeps us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
As for the OP, no, not mental abuse. Indoctrination yes, abuse, no. I brought my kids up with no religious perpective. When they both got to majority, it was up to them what they did. What I did teach them was to approach life with an open a mind as possible.
Humans have instincts....the thing is that instincts can be overridden or subdued by environment and upbringing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Someone can be trained out of certain instinctual behaviors...we do it to animals all the time so I can´t see how this can be denied.
almost everyone hides something from society at large...be it a weird sexual fetish or simply the fact that you enjoy a tv show that your friends might find "geeky".......are all these people persecuted???Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
if you extend the definition of a word to mean everything....then it doesn´t mean anything.
and even if I accept your position....if all these people are being persecuted.....then who is the biggest persecutor?? Religion...I´m looking your way.
Anything a parent does will influence their children. If a parent tells their child about religion then that is not indoctrination. At least no more than a child having an atheist parent who tells them religion is silly.
With everything a parent does they are influencing their children. If they eat something, then their children are more likely to try it, is that indoctrination? Of course parents influence their children, but its unavoidable unless all children are raised by the state in giant communes where they aren't allowed to learn anything in case it influences them before they grow up and think for themselves.
Also my parents are not religious BTW.
If teaching religion to your kids is abuse than so is anything else a parent teaches. I dont see how you can see it as abuse when there are parents indoctrinating a kid the other way as well.
Well, this argument doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
1) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom (good)
2) Wash your hands with bleach every five minutes (bad)
You would have to examine what was being taught.
Well he didn't specify what religion or how fervently. He just made a blanket assumption. So I agree. I dont think one can call most anything a parent teaches a child "abuse" even if its religous extremism or racism. It is not the governments business to control thought within a household to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
My above post should have said my parents were not religious.
I wouldn't think it is really necessary to indoctrinate children anyway, because it is predestined before time who will/will not be saved, these are the views most US Christians hold I believe. But then its a MATRIX situation - would you really have knocked the vase over if I didn't say you would have? Would it be your fault if they went to Hell because you hadn't taught them? No presumably since God is sovereign. So no need to indoctrinate children, just let them be aware.
Abuse? Hardly.
While I can appreciate your concern for the matter, Kad(I myself have been trying some soul searching the last year or so), abuse is a rather serious term for such an issue. As Don said, abuse implies that the government should come in and take the child away from the parent because of it. Frankly, any religious person is, in some way, going to pass on their beliefs to their children no matter how open minded they tell them to be, because children have a tendency to emulate their parent's actions for awhile when young. If one goes to church, children will want to come with them(well, at least until they hit 13 or so:wink:). If one goes to the Minaret or synogogue or stuppa or even baseball game, their children will wish to come with them, until they make a decision on whether or not they find it as interesting as their parents.
Something like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
If a parent tells their child about religion then that is not indoctrination. At least no more than a child having an atheist parent who tells them religion is silly.
I completely agree!!!
If i was to just read off bad things religions have done day in day out to my child that would be indoctrination (the truth but a very baised selection of it) i think your indoctrinating your kid if your trying to make him religious like you or an atheist like you
I would share my theorys and my understanding of different religions with my child but i wouldn't push him towards any religion or non religion...
If one goes to church, children will want to come with them
From about the age of 8 i wanted to stop going to church, it wasn't till i hit about 15 that i was finally let off!!
I had to go on christmas day and everything!!! (damn evil christians!! :wink:)
TBH my mums fairly laid back on the whole religion thing, i would imagine there are loads of kids who went through what i went though.... and plenty worse...
Abuse is the wrong word... indoctrination is the more appropriate word... though indoctrination doesn't imply malicious intent, its similar to convincing your kid hes a con/lib like you
Too much censorship on these boards.
you asked if simply exposing a child to religionm constituted mental abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I disagreed with that premise.
those examples you are giving now are not simple exposition to religion....they are abuse...and not just mental abuse...just abuse flat out.
At a young age, a child is programmed to believe whatever it's parents (or anyone it recognizes as authority) say, because testing things out scientifically at that age can be fatal. So if the parents tell their child about god, the child will not be making a choice whether to believe or not - it will just automatically believe because the parents said so. As the child grows up, it's highly unlikely that it will think more about it, and thus won't question it then either. The meme will have taken it's roots, and it would be very hard for the person to shake it off. Ask anyone who has deconverted from a faith they were taught to believe in as a child. Guess why religion always say "give us the boy and we'll give you the man"?
It is indoctrination. It is child abuse. If you really can't keep your religion for yourself, let your child first learn critical thinking, then tell it about religion (and not just your own).
Atheism is not a religion any more than "off" is a TV channel. It simply isn't. Religion is the practice of worshipping a god/gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods, and therefore it is not a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As for the "evangelical" part, yes, atheists can be outspoken, and we bloody well should be. If theists could keep their religion from affecting someone else than themselves, then yes, I'd say leave it be, but people don't. People vote on their beliefs, they try to pass laws and regulations, they blow themselves and other people up because of their beliefs. We simply cannot stay silent and just watch.
LOL! Go to the middle east and say you're an atheist - see how long you get to keep your head. Admittedly, the Christians in America are a little better - they just disown you if they're your parents, leave you if they're your friends, fire you if they're your employer or persecute you if they just know you're an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No, not everyone does that. A majority, though... yes.
Showing them that there's no basis for their irrational belief is not a bad thing. Sure, people can do it in bad ways, but religious beliefs doesn't deserve respect. That is not to say the believer doesn't deserve respect, but the belief doesn't. No belief does. It either stands on it's own merits, or it falls for it's lack of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Care to back that up with some evidence? You can't just say "there has never been a society without religion" and expect us to take your word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Why religion has been so widespread is because humans are naturally curious. We want answers, and when we didn't have the science to find them out, we made them up. That eased our minds, because it felt better to pretend to have the answers rather than to admit that you don't know.
No, it isn't. Sweden is 85% atheist, Norway 80% and I don't remember the percentage for the Danes, but it's up in the 80's as well. It is a very, very, very secular and atheistic place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Tabula rasa is wrong. The reason why that is, is because religion is one thing that we're not born with - it's something we're taught. That doesn't mean that we're not born with anything - morals such as not to kill other people we're born with thanks to evolution and more importantly natural selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
This is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. If you don't know anything about biology, don't talk about it. Mm'kay? Anyone who has studied human behaviour would laugh at that claim. I just cry. Just to show how strong our instincts are, it's well understood by psychologists that control over a person's sexuality is pretty much equivalent to control over the person itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The other way around goes for atheists in America. Not to mention homosexuals... what's that whole "coming out of the closet" thing again?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
As for being a Christian here in Scandinavia, I believe Kadagar is overstating things. Religion is simply not talked about. It's something people kept for themselves, and it wasn't until I came in contact with theists from other places that did not keep it to themselves that I started speaking out like I do now.
Political views, yes. Let the kid develop critical thinking before getting in to politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Moral views? Not completely. For example, we're born with a mental barrier against killing other people thanks to evolution and natural selection, as I mentioned before. Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.
You'll have to define "general worldview" better for me to answer that as well, but I'm sure you can see my point here.
Survival Instinct? No. Had it been an instinct, there would be no suicides and no self-sacrifice.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Procreation Instinct? No. Monks/Nuns and secular people who remain willingly childless clearly do not follow it.
Altruist Instinct? Once again, no. Acts of altruism are not universal.
Etc.? There is no etc. Humans have no instincts. If an "instinct" can be overcome, it's not an instinct. If an "instinct" is not universal for the species, it's not an instinct.
Instinct definition:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.
Please notice that because something is instinctive does not mean you have no choice but to follow it.
Humans have instincts, like all other animals, that does not mean we always follow them.
We can clearly go beyond our instincts. Overrule them. Use whatever term you like, those are still instincts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Even more basically [than the survival instinct], an aversion to pain? We instinctively avoid it. Bring up sadism if you will but I'd argue that that is a psychological overruling of our instincts in order to achieve another instinct.
All humans pursue pleasure and happiness. Or at least what they think will grant them those two things.
That satisfy your criteria?
Then we clearly use the same word to describe different things. As far as I know instinct is a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Depends on what the religion is.
Religion itself is a neutral concept. The aspects of religion are positive or negative.
Teaching good morals; Good
Teaching that God chose your people to be better than everyone else; Bad
Teaching respect and tolerance for others; Good
Teaching that women are inferior to men; Bad
Teaching that murder and theft and lying is wrong; Good
Teaching that heretics should be burned and prostitutes should be stoned; Bad
Teaching that Lord Xenu enslaved billions of people several trillion years ago and destroyed people in volcanoes with nuclear warheads and then the remnants of those slaves became little demons which invaded your body and cause all psychological problems and therefore you should never see a psychologist or take any kind of drugs and that you need to donate your life and your money to the cult of Scientology:
So bad it hurts my brain to imagine this thing still exists.
Crusades/jihads/holy wars:
So ignorant it makes my stomach do flips.
religious persecution in Russia and China: Just as bad as the bad parts of religion.
I think that I might best express my response to this question with this reflection:
Were I to be hit by the proverbial bus, I would far rather my orphaned children were brought up by Don Corleone than Kadagar_AV.
ok...I´ll try this another way..Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
do you agree that animals like dogs and tigers have instincts?
if so how do you explain the fact that these animals can be trained to change those behaviors?
When I see a hot young brunette walking down the street I want to have sex with her...that´s instinctive.....society whoever has "trained" us to know it is not correct to simply follow that instinct.......it´s the same thing as the tiger that learned to jump through hoops at the circus instead of ripping the trainers head off.
To be fair, not all non-theists (such as myself) are as vehement in their opposition to religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Although your specific point is your own valid opinion, I would hope you'd not judge all non-theists the same way.
:bow:
So, when a soldier covers up a live grenade with his body in order to save his buddies, how exactly is he seeking pleasure or happiness?Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
Programmed? Don't make me laugh. You act as though children are robots. I was taken to church every sunday, went to Religious Ed up through middle school, was confirmed in eighth grade. Then, I went to a Catholic high school. And yet, I'm still questioning Christianity quite a bit. Only through absolute ground pounding, "gonna go to hell" policies do you so completely ingrain beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Again, you imply that parents who teach their child religion should have their kids taken away from them and put in foster homes. So much for freedom. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Perhaps you should try an anthropology or sociology course? Ever heard of animism? Shaminism? Religion simply cannot be defined as a belief in god/gods. Its a belief in the supernatural. Frankly, Atheists who are as sure of themselves as religious fanatics are just as bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Hmm. Tell me, have you ever lived in America for an extended time? If not, then please don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
A better question, frankly, would be can you find a society which evolved with no belief in the supernatural.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Not gonna argue much with you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Sources? Census? Something?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
No argument here.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Once again; unless you have lived in America for several years, in the various regions across America, I ask that don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
How do you define what "morals" to teach children, then? How do you think morals originally were supported?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
we are instilled by society to protect those around us.....like I have said a bunch of times....instinct can be overridden....you are sticking to a rigid definition of "instinct" that is not correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Celtic and Makaikhaan-
Let's not disrespect one another. Please remember that although this is an emotionally charged issue, everyone here is worthy of respect and we can phrase our disagreements or our opinions in less sweeping generalities, or in disrespectful language.
I think this discussion is worth having, but such things could lock the thread.
Please be kind to one another.
Gentlemen,
You will all calm down right away, or this thread will be closed and warnings issued. :beadyeyes2:
Please respect each other's viewpoints when discussing this sensitive subject.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Sorry, ATPG, but when someone starts talking about how we need not respect a person's religious beliefs, it rather sets me off. Not to mention staking out broad generalizations about which misrepresent religion as a concept, staking it as an inherent evil, as well as bashing whole other nations for their supposed intolerance when that person does not live there, quite gets me riled up as well. If he does not respect me, I will not respect him.
Of course almost all animals have instincts. That doesn't mean however, that *all* of their behavior is instinctive and thus not subject to change. What instincts they *do* have however, are not subject to change. If you want to talk pure instinct, take a really primitive animal like a worker ant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Thats's not correct. I believe it was around 20% Christians. The rest are not atheists; I saw an EU survey linked to some time back, and a lot were labelled as believing in some sort of "life force". (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf; p. 9, France appears to be the country with the most atheists in Europe)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Personally I find it talked about rather frequently, ho hum.Quote:
As for being a Christian here in Scandinavia, I believe Kadagar is overstating things. Religion is simply not talked about. It's something people kept for themselves, and it wasn't until I came in contact with theists from other places that did not keep it to themselves that I started speaking out like I do now.
This depends on how you want society to function; and if you believe that it should actually function at all.Quote:
Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.
I doubt anything but swearwords was removed. I was actually going to type a reply to your post; but it dissappeared before I got time to quote it. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
And why exactly is it not correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I also believe and can prove that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion. Logic itself dictates what actions are immoral.
To kill an innocent person is irrational destruction, and causes unnecessary pain. That's illogical.
To steal from innocent people harms them, and gives you something which you do not deserve. You did not earn it honestly, and you are in volation of the law and social contract of the land, and you are bringing disorder and chaos to the land, which causes us to have to bring police into the situation, which puts people in prison, and drains society as a whole. On every level, stealing is illogical except in survival situations, and even then it usually doesn't hurt to ask for help first.
Cheating on your spouse betrays trust and can cause unwanted pregnancy and also spread STDs, and causes oneself to grow suspicious and guilty. There are so many logical reasons not to cheat.
Addictive drugs are self-destructive and dangerous to others when under the influence.
Any immoral action is also inherently irrational or illogical. Torture, for example, may yield information, but like stealing may yield necessary items, the path you take to get there is flawed. Firstly, you could be damaging an innocent person. Secondly, the people you need to torture to get information from are sometimes trained to withstand it. Many are willing to die. And some who might have been willing to talk will refuse once tortured. Torture is in most circumstances counterproductive, and it is essentially wrong and immoral.
There are circumstances where a society will break its ethical code to torture the most hardened criminal or terrorist, but that does not mean it is the most rational method of gaining information, nor does it mean that the information needs to be gained at all, especially using such a method.
Religion or superstition is a set of ideas which do not have a solid basis in what we understand and know to be reality or proven science. Faith is the belief in those ideas. They may or may not be wrong ideas, but we cannot prove that they are right (or wrong). As such, the rational mind should adhere to rational knowledge above irrational belief. People do not always do this, and when that happens, we have witch trials, public beheadings, terrorist bombings, suicide attacks, mass suicide, stoning of heretics, teaching superstition as knowledge, reluctance to accept modern medicine, and people being coerced into exploitative organizations and cults who abuse their members.
Not all religions are wholly negative, many organizations do good works. I merely contend that those good works should be done by all, and irrespective of faith. People can also have faith, but they need to be grounded in reality.
I recently spoke with a Wiccan nurse. He believes in the irrational over the rational, and said so plainly to me in those words. I responded that if this were so, then you cannot practice medicine, because you will favor a spell over traditional medicine. And he said he would. This is an example of religion perverting the mind.
When I go to the doctor, I don't want a Wiccan casting spells on me instead of practicing medicine. This is just an example, not all Wiccans are like that. But the example is a religious person favoring irrational faith over rational science. This is unacceptable.
You can have faith, but you should never let it interfere with what the mind can prove is correct. Blind faith leads to crusades, holy wars, ignorance, hatred, and corruption of the mind.
He would die happy knowing that he was about to do something good. Plus, it's far better to die honourably and satisfy that need we all seem to have for a legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I'd like to think I'd do the exact same thing. And I'm as hedonistic as anyone.
By that logic, something has to have created God. Eventually, you have to concede that something must have come from nothing. May just as well be anti-matter (or however Big Bang Theory goes) as it is God.Quote:
Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.
Oh I quite understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
In this case, you were both wrong. That doesn't condemn either of you as bad people, just as human beings.
:yes:
I understand why you reacted that way, and I'm not even religious. That doesn't matter, we should ALL respect each other, even when we disagree. I just don't want to see two of my fellow orgah's fighting rather than debating respectfully.
Let's keep things on a positive note, and we can continue this fascinating discussion!
To the topic…
If I follow a way of life that I think is positive and beneficial isn’t it my responsibility to pass that along to my children? What kind of a douche-bag parent would I be if I didn’t raise my children to follow a path that I follow and feel works, religious or not and with extremes aside. Until they are old enough to make up their own minds a parents job is to raise them to the best of our ability so when they do leave the nest they can be independent, positive contributors to society.
@yesdachi
Agreed. Of course you have to teach morals and values to children. It would be shameful not to.
As a non-theist raised by theistic parents, all I'm really asking for is that parents don't force the religion on them. Allow them to choose, and teach what you believe. Just don't punish a child for not reading the Bible, for example.
I turned out OK and I respect my parents' differing religious views. I also view religious people more positively, having been raised by two fine ones. If my children were religious, it wouldn't bother me.
My whole point is the harmful aspects of ANY kind of ideology, be it religion or politics or philosophy, whatever. Don't be militant, extremist, or force bad views on children. Let people decide for themselves, and allow your children to explore your viewpoint without making it an obligation.
Isn't that a good compromise for all, religious or not? :bow:
That's what I've thought.
Is this about religion or board censorship? Anyway, Kadagar - you have to build and support your points. Repeating the same one over and over simply won't do. :beam:
I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone. Not to hijack the thread, but would everyone be so kind as to indicate where they stand on this issue, included within their on-topic posts?
Example:
I'm non-theistic, non-religious. I favor allowing the child to learn about whatever religion they want, and also teaching my perspective, and not punishing them for disagreeing with me.
choices:
Non-religious
Religious
Unsure about religion,
and
Teach the child your views, punish if they disagree
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought
Never teach the child your views.
and if you have other options you'd like to present, go ahead. Personally I think that sharing your views but not forcing/coercing them to adhere to your views is the best method. I also think that being non-religious is better, too, but that's only my opinion.
:bow:
I'm not sure how it could lead us to an universal moral. First, one must define what's desired and what's not; and this is entirely subjective:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
That is not going to prevent a logical person from doing it; logic is relative and need a frame of reference, just as velocity is meaningless without having anything to measure it with regards to.Quote:
To kill an innocent person is irrational destruction, and causes unnecessary pain.
Furthermore, what is really an innocent person? You'll find that these views vary a lot from situation to situation; he who considers himself innnocent might be considered guilty by others.
-
That said, I do absolutely agree that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion, just as you say. In fact, I'll say that the opposite view is outright absurd
Non-religious. I'm not sure what to answer to the second question; but no doubt, I have plenty of time to figure out. ~DQuote:
I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone. Not to hijack the thread, but would everyone be so kind as to indicate where they stand on this issue, included within their on-topic posts?
Sometimes you, as a parent(please notice that I'm not one), one uses religion to explain certain things that exceed the natural or are hard to teach at their age(e.g. Grandmum made the bag and went to Heaven). It also works to delimitate whats good and what is not, and to prepare them to be teached about religion. Its not a mental abuse, its just teaching them what is good and bad for God (the Christhian one and the other Gods also). If you send them into a catholic school, they are teaching them a lot more of God, but in any point they are commiting mental abuse. Later, if that child doesn't believe in God, is his or her choice, and if in one moment of their lifes they believe in God, good. If they don't believe in God for the rest of their lifes, good also.
Maybe you should define what mental abuse is, if you are still in the forum.
They're programmed by evolution and natural selection. Children who went against their parents warnings not to go too near the hungry lion got eaten. Those who listened survived to pass their genes on. That's what I meant when I said they're programmed to just listen - and they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
Oh, yes, because it's not the religious parent indoctrinating the child into their religion who's taking away the child's freedom to choose for itself. It's I who's trying to take away their freedom to indoctrinate.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
If it's "a belief in the supernatural", then atheism still isn't a religion, because all atheism is is the lack of a belief in one specific supernatural thing - a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
I'm not basing this on what I believe, I base things on people who have grown up in America has told me. And not just 1, 2 or 20. A lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
I'm not the one suggesting something came out of nothing. Please don't strawman my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
I don't know what caused the big bang. I don't know, and no one does. To take that as an argument for god is an argument from ignorance.
To say that "everything needs a source" means that your god needs a source, and that source needs a source, and that source in turn also needs a source etc. To say "everything... oh, except god" is special pleading.
That is a good question. Why are you asking me?Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
Lets for simplicity's sake take the one supplied by Viking.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf
According to that one, 77% are atheists. It's not the 85% I've heard elsewhere, but for my point to stand correct 77% is still enough.
How about having been told by people who have been born and grown up in various regions across America? Would that suffice?Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
The first morals were simple, such as not to kill other humans, came through evolution and natural selection. As the tribes grew, the noticed that it worked better if they didn't steal etc., and morals like that grew up in that way. This is an extremely simplistic explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
I don't see how I disrespected anyone. It might be worth noting, though, that I don't see how Makaikhaan disrespected anyone either...Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I think I was careful enough when I said that you should not respect someone's religious beliefs to make clear that I still think you should show respect to the person holding the belief. I want you to know that I try to show you respect, but I hold no pretention to respect your beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaikhaan
If you have taken offense at anything that I've said, then I'm sorry, it was not my intention. However, I will continue to show no respect for your beliefs.
Thank you for supplying that source. According to it, I'm only 8% off, which still lands me on 77% - which is enough for my claim. Remember: the definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in a god". In other words, those who said "I believe in a god" (because that was what they said, not that the believed in the christian god) are theists - the rest are thus atheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't believe in the supernatural: it just means that you don't believe in a god.