Possibly the most unsettling aspect about religion for me, is how it seeks to forcibly impose it's beliefs onto little children.

All around the world, respective cultures with their respective deities, and their respective belief in being the exclusive truth, nominate children from birth, as belonging to their faith.
They are forced to accept ludicrous teachings well before the age where they can possibly reason for themselves, in the hope that this fantasy becomes so deeply entrenched in their psyche that it will over ride any rational analysis of the validity of what they have been taught, but simply retain it as unquestionable truth, which is what they are told since birth.

Surely the christian seeing a child sent to a madrassa to learn nothing but the koran, would see the unfairness to the child in that circumstance.

Is it so hard for them to even contemplate being happy to primarily seek to see all children given the chance to learn to think rationally, and to be able to reason for themselves, before attempting to force they make a spiritual decision that surely should be everyone's right to make for themselves, rather than something you just inherit from your family and culture.

If christians do not face this question soon, they could well find themselves in cultures where their beliefs are simply being outbred by another.

Modern secular societies really need to make the first move, and start by separating schools and education in general,  from all religious proselytising of any kind.

If it is left up to who can breed the fastest becomes the world's dominant religion, then god help us all. ;)

Secularism means freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Goes with those other great freedoms, of conscience and of speech.

I don't want the state to be arbiter of what to think or say. You seem to think that secularism is about giving the state more power. It isn't.

Freedom of religion is not a freedom that should  supplant an individuals freedom, and I think it is an abuse of all children's freedom that have a dogma taught to them as inviolable truth, when it should never be allowed to be portrayed as anything other than a personal, spiritual choice.
Religions deny children that freedom of choice, they absolutely try to eradicate any questioning of their dogma, some obviously far more than others, who may even kill you for questioning it, but the principle remains, children are people too, they have rights as well, and they should have the right to grow up to make their own choices.
Our role as parents and a society should be to best equip them with the capacity to reason, and to function as empathic individuals.

So where are they taught this unidentified stuff and what is it that is so dangerous and disturbing to you that you think they are being taught?

Well they are being taught it at home, at church, and at school.
Now the first two we cannot do a whole lot about, but the third we most definitely can.
We should ban all religious teaching in school, and substitute rational thinking and modern ethics subjects in it's place.

At least that way the kids will at least have some frame of reference for how the world works that does not rely on an imposed belief in magical creatures controlling everything.

Just how evil the teachings they receive will be dependant on the degree of fundamentalism that their church and parents follow.

Many teachings will be quite benign, while many others will be repugnant, but all will be based on the lie that they know god.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 2:42pm:

Well they are being taught it at home, at church, and at school. Now the first two we cannot do a whole lot about, but the third we most definitely can. We should ban all religious teaching in school, and substitute rational thinking and modern ethics subjects in it's place. At least that way the kids will at least have some frame of reference for how the world works that does not rely on an imposed belief in magical creatures controlling everything. Just how evil the teachings they receive will be dependant on the degree of fundamentalism that their church and parents follow. Many teachings will be quite benign, while many others will be repugnant, but all will be based on the lie that they know god.

You mean you'd force them to be like you - you who is as free of doubt as any religious fanatic?

It's up to the parents, not the kids, anyway. Children do not 'choose' what to study in school.


I love that 'modern ethical subjects' bit. WHat's the shelf life of 'modern ethical subjects'? And 'rational thinking'. Are these not subject to exegesis and re-interpretation? DO they not change over time? Or do you think they are somehow natural phenomena?

Where would you draw the line? How would you draw the line? 'State financed education must be hostile to the religious heritage of all cultures and civilisations'? 'Must endorse only one way of looking at the world, Mozz'a way, and the State must act in support of Mozz's views on things he deems contaminated by any notions of 'god' (dread word)?'

Mozz, you have surprisingly adolescent ideas sometimes.

Perhaps you can explain why religion should be offered any of the concessions it currently demands from society?

Why should we give religion any more rights than the local footy club?

Quote:

At least that way the kids will at least have some frame of reference for how the world works that does not rely on an imposed belief in magical creatures controlling everything.

But Christians are taught we have free will Mozz... didn't you know?

As for ethics...  morals are part of ethics.

I don't see a need to teach religion in school per se, but certainly any religious teaching through scripture classes in the public schools i attended did not fill my head or heart with hatred and unreasoning beliefs.  

In fact it probably did more good than bad to some people that attended.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 5:13pm:

Perhaps you can explain why religion should be offered any of the concessions it currently demands from society? Why should we give religion any more rights than the local footy club?

Apart from tax exemption for donations, what other concessions do you have in mind?
The tax exemoption is based on charity. A sporting association is not a charity. A church, apart from everything else, is a charity organisation. You, too, can set up a charity organisation. You will have to do some charity work though.

.

Even most of IKEA's profits are tax exempt since INGKA Holding's parent, Stichting Ingka Foundation, is a tax-exempt not-for-profit foundation.

Cheap cop out boys, you all know that charity is no church's primary goal.
If they wish to set up duly registered and regulated charitable institutions then they can, and those separate institutions can get the benefits of that status, but I am talking about the religious organisations themselves, why should they get ANY special consideration?

mozzaok wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 11:53am:

Cheap cop out boys, you all know that charity is no church's primary goal. If they wish to set up duly registered and regulated charitable institutions then they can, and those separate institutions can get the benefits of that status, but I am talking about the religious organisations themselves, why should they get ANY special consideration?

What sort of special consideration are they getting?

As an atheist dont care for religion and I agree with mozz about what he has written, but I dont lump Buddhism in with the others, I've found Buddhism to be an honest caring gentle belief, unlike Christianity and Islam which are just hell bent on discrediting the other at every opportunity. and even though I'm an atheist I do try to follow the principles of the basic buddhist belief system.
Most of the christian speeches I hear from particularly American evangelists are just as extreme as the extremist Muslims.

I don't see how Buddhism is in any way more caring and gentle than the Abrahamic religions. This is only the west's interpretation in popular culture. If you lived in Sri Lanka, perhaps your view would be different. Every major religion and philosophy has its extremists.

Hlysnan wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

I don't see how Buddhism is in any way more caring and gentle than the Abrahamic religions. This is only the west's interpretation in popular culture. If you lived in Sri Lanka, perhaps your view would be different. Every major religion and philosophy has its extremists.

So you don't know much about Buddhism hey? or Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is considered to be the third most religious country in the world, which is interesting as a lot of people like the bible basher goose who used to post here(what was his name?) say its not even a religion.
You'd also have to look at the 7.5% of Muslims and 7.5% of Christians to see where the problem stems from. But the main source of dispute that you would read about is the Tamils, oh yes the Tamils,who are predominatly Hindu, with Hindu making up 16% of the Sri Lankin population.

skippy. wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 2:36pm:

Hlysnan wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 1:08pm: I don't see how Buddhism is in any way more caring and gentle than the Abrahamic religions. This is only the west's interpretation in popular culture. If you lived in Sri Lanka, perhaps your view would be different. Every major religion and philosophy has its extremists. So you don't know much about Buddhism hey?

Ever heard of Burma, skip?

Soren wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:36pm: Hlysnan wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 1:08pm: I don't see how Buddhism is in any way more caring and gentle than the Abrahamic religions. This is only the west's interpretation in popular culture. If you lived in Sri Lanka, perhaps your view would be different. Every major religion and philosophy has its extremists. So you don't know much about Buddhism hey? Ever heard of Burma, skip?

I don't think it was the Buddhist religion OR anyone speaking on its behalf who were responsible for the actions of General Ne Win, last time I checked the Buddist religion  in Burma were not in charge of the army,but nice try at discrediting Buddhism, you are a true Christian.

Next you'll be telling me its the fault of the Jews and Israel for what hapens in the middle east. ;D

IN FACT-


Quote:

Buddhists also have their complaints regarding religious freedom. A political party, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, split from the main Karen nationalist movement, the KNU, after the Buddhists were denied to rebuild and repair the stupas at Manerplaw. The top leadership of the KNU were also dominated by Christians, although roughly 60% of the Karen are Buddhist. Many monks took part in the 2007 Saffron Revolution and were reportedly arrested by government security forces. Some of the leading monks are still detained in various prisons across the coutry

Did you read that?  theKNU leadership is dominated by Christians?

skippy. wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 3:02pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:53pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:36pm: Hlysnan wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 1:08pm: I don't see how Buddhism is in any way more caring and gentle than the Abrahamic religions. This is only the west's interpretation in popular culture. If you lived in Sri Lanka, perhaps your view would be different. Every major religion and philosophy has its extremists. So you don't know much about Buddhism hey? Ever heard of Burma, skip? I don't think it was the Buddhist religion OR anyone speaking on its behalf who were responsible for the actions of General Ne Win, last time I checked the Buddist religion  in Burma were not in charge of the army,but nice try at discrediting Buddhism, you are a true Christian. Next you'll be telling me its the fault of the Jews and Israel for what hapens in the middle east. ;D IN FACT- Quote: Buddhists also have their complaints regarding religious freedom. A political party, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, split from the main Karen nationalist movement, the KNU, after the Buddhists were denied to rebuild and repair the stupas at Manerplaw. The top leadership of the KNU were also dominated by Christians, although roughly 60% of the Karen are Buddhist. Many monks took part in the 2007 Saffron Revolution and were reportedly arrested by government security forces. Some of the leading monks are still detained in various prisons across the coutry

Computer sayz 'no'...


Many religions are practised in Burma. Religious edifices and orders have been in existence for many years. Festivals can be held on a grand scale. The Christian and Muslim populations do, however, face religious persecution and it is hard, if not impossible, for non-Buddhists to join the army or get government jobs, the main route to success in the country.[172] Such persecution and targeting of civilians is particularly notable in Eastern Burma, where over 3000 villages have been destroyed in the past ten years.[173][174][175] More than 200,000 Rohingya Muslims have settled in Bangladesh, to escape persecution, over the past 20 years

Soren wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:02pm: Soren wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:53pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:36pm: Hlysnan wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 1:08pm: I don't see how Buddhism is in any way more caring and gentle than the Abrahamic religions. This is only the west's interpretation in popular culture. If you lived in Sri Lanka, perhaps your view would be different. Every major religion and philosophy has its extremists. So you don't know much about Buddhism hey? Ever heard of Burma, skip? I don't think it was the Buddhist religion OR anyone speaking on its behalf who were responsible for the actions of General Ne Win, last time I checked the Buddist religion  in Burma were not in charge of the army,but nice try at discrediting Buddhism, you are a true Christian. Next you'll be telling me its the fault of the Jews and Israel for what hapens in the middle east. ;D IN FACT- Quote: Buddhists also have their complaints regarding religious freedom. A political party, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, split from the main Karen nationalist movement, the KNU, after the Buddhists were denied to rebuild and repair the stupas at Manerplaw. The top leadership of the KNU were also dominated by Christians, although roughly 60% of the Karen are Buddhist. Many monks took part in the 2007 Saffron Revolution and were reportedly arrested by government security forces. Some of the leading monks are still detained in various prisons across the coutry Computer sayz 'no'... Many religions are practised in Burma. Religious edifices and orders have been in existence for many years. Festivals can be held on a grand scale. The Christian and Muslim populations do, however, face religious persecution and it is hard, if not impossible, for non-Buddhists to join the army or get government jobs, the main route to success in the country.[172] Such persecution and targeting of civilians is particularly notable in Eastern Burma, where over 3000 villages have been destroyed in the past ten years.[173][174][175] More than 200,000 Rohingya Muslims have settled in Bangladesh, to escape persecution, over the past 20 years

My computer says yes- and if you care to look a little further on the site you just googled you'll see what I've said is right, did you notice that the KNU leadership is dominated by Christians yet? or are you just pretending that isn't there?

skippy. wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 3:16pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:11pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:02pm: Soren wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:53pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 2:36pm: Hlysnan wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 1:08pm: I don't see how Buddhism is in any way more caring and gentle than the Abrahamic religions. This is only the west's interpretation in popular culture. If you lived in Sri Lanka, perhaps your view would be different. Every major religion and philosophy has its extremists. So you don't know much about Buddhism hey? Ever heard of Burma, skip? I don't think it was the Buddhist religion OR anyone speaking on its behalf who were responsible for the actions of General Ne Win, last time I checked the Buddist religion  in Burma were not in charge of the army,but nice try at discrediting Buddhism, you are a true Christian. Next you'll be telling me its the fault of the Jews and Israel for what hapens in the middle east. ;D IN FACT- Quote: Buddhists also have their complaints regarding religious freedom. A political party, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, split from the main Karen nationalist movement, the KNU, after the Buddhists were denied to rebuild and repair the stupas at Manerplaw. The top leadership of the KNU were also dominated by Christians, although roughly 60% of the Karen are Buddhist. Many monks took part in the 2007 Saffron Revolution and were reportedly arrested by government security forces. Some of the leading monks are still detained in various prisons across the coutry Computer sayz 'no'... Many religions are practised in Burma. Religious edifices and orders have been in existence for many years. Festivals can be held on a grand scale. The Christian and Muslim populations do, however, face religious persecution and it is hard, if not impossible, for non-Buddhists to join the army or get government jobs, the main route to success in the country.[172] Such persecution and targeting of civilians is particularly notable in Eastern Burma, where over 3000 villages have been destroyed in the past ten years.[173][174][175] More than 200,000 Rohingya Muslims have settled in Bangladesh, to escape persecution, over the past 20 years My computer says yes- and if you care to look a little further on the site you just googled you'll see what I've said is right, did you notice that the KNU leadership is dominated by Christians yet? or are you just pretending that isn't there?

No, I haven't noticed any of that. The Christian ( 4 % of the population)  are dominating the rest? Wow!  Must be with divine help, don't you think?


China, Japan, Vietnam, Burma and Thailand have the largest number of Buddhists. Not exctly a bunch of  hippies.

Quote:

No, I haven't noticed any of that.

You need to learn to read then ol son.Its here in black and white.


Quote:

The top leadership of the KNU were also dominated by Christians, although roughly 60% of the Karen are Buddhist.

Quote:

China, Japan, Vietnam, Burma and Thailand have the largest number of Buddhists.

China- an agnostic state, nup no Buddhist monks in charge there.
Japan- no, no Buddhist monks in charge there,Japan places very little importance on religion.
Vietnam, invaded by the Christian USA to keep out those bloody commos from China.mmmmmmmm.The USA failed and Vietnam has been under a regime since 1975, nup ,no Buddhist monks in charge there.
Burma, under a military coup since 1962, nup no monks in charge there.
Thailand,  very peaceful people( I lived there for 2 years) and see much more violence at the SCG on a Sunday,the Thais are a bit like the Italians, they like to change their government often, whilst living there I've seen 2 coups occur,and never felt threatened once. but again, no Buddhist monks in charge there, maybe they'll be next,then you can try and put your misjudged opinion to practice.

You seem to think governments own and mould the people.

The political changes you list are fairly recent, in historical terms, while th buddhist character of these places goes back for centuries. Centuries, during which all these places were no hippy heavens but were backward, sunk into squalid inertia and endless fighting and bloodletting (see martial arts). They were sad, incurious backwaters.

In my experience, western 'buddhists', especially the ones who live in the west, are the most neurotic, repressed people in search of psychic salve for their barely contained manic depression.

Soren wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 11:52pm:

In my experience, western 'buddhists', especially the ones who live in the west, are the most neurotic, repressed people in search of psychic salve for their barely contained manic depression.

Sounds more like evangelists and Pentecostals... Except they perceive their mania to be evidence of a divine rapture and their depression as demonic torment.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 4:18am:

Soren wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 11:52pm: In my experience, western 'buddhists', especially the ones who live in the west, are the most neurotic, repressed people in search of psychic salve for their barely contained manic depression. Sounds more like evangelists and Pentecostals... Except they perceive their mania to be evidence of a divine rapture and their depression as demonic torment.

Of coarse it does helian, does anyone think soren even knows a Buddhist? a repressed bible basher lecturing on the evils of Buddhism, he is a laugh and half, let alone wrong in every assumption so far.

Quote:

You seem to think governments own and mould the people.

Well they do in most of the countries you've mentioned.


Quote:

Centuries, during which all these places were no hippy heavens but were backward, sunk into squalid inertia and endless fighting and bloodletting (see martial arts).

LOL, that your best yet, what countries were not like that centuries ago?

Do you know where karate originated,soren? I'll save you the google ol son, INDIA, LOL.

Look at the history of western thought, art, literature, music and you will see a creativity unmatched by any other civilisation, ever. It leaves all of them, Buddhism included, in the dust.
Spiritually speaking, only neurotics and eccentrics dabble in Buddhism.

Quote:

Spiritually speaking, only neurotics and eccentrics dabble in Buddhism

LOL, I was right you do know bugger all about Buddhism.
As an atheist, spiritually speaking , only losers dabble in religion, but unlike Christianity and Islam, Buddhism is more a way of life than it is a religion, it teaches peace tolerance and acceptance, where as Christianity teaches you're either with us or against us, if you don't believe our fairy tales you'll all go to hell. That is why Christianity attracts people of an insecure nature.

Soren wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 3:20pm:

It's up to the parents, not the kids, anyway. Children do not 'choose' what to study in school.

Actually they do to a large extent when they get into the last few years of High School. Theoretically the parents have the final say, but in practice, kids make the decisions on their education path depending on their interests.

Mozz - If you want to remove all that is irrational in teaching, then your target needs to be much broader than religion. You might consider English Literature for one.

The works of James Joyce should definitely be banned for being subversive. Let's add DH Lawrence and hmmm let's see - William Shakespeare - all that irrational stuff about star crossed lovers who commit suicide - sounds very subversive and dangerous to me. The next thing we'd know teenagers would be doing away with themselves.

In fact, let's take anything that provides insight into the human condition. Dangerous irrational creatures, these humans. We must avoid Christianity, and Hinduism and ....Art of any description.

Teaching kids about adults - now that's just downright disgusting.  J D Salinger can go on the bonfire straight away.

OK comrade, which books shall we permit in this Brave New World?

Dawkins?

No way. Have you seen what the suicide rate in Atheists is like? That's positively subversive stuff.

So at this stage, we're kinda on a parallel with the Khmer Rouge. Is that where you see your brave new world heading?

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 10:01am:

Look at the history of western thought, art, literature, music and you will see a creativity unmatched by any other civilisation, ever. It leaves all of them, Buddhism included, in the dust. Spiritually speaking, only neurotics and eccentrics dabble in Buddhism.

I wouldn't know. I'm a Hindu (Let me just check - yes, today is Thursday) Of course, I might have a different opinion next Tuesday when I'm scheduled to be a Lutheran.  ;)

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 10:01am:

Spiritually speaking, only neurotics and eccentrics dabble in Buddhism.

Seems we're moving from bipolar disorders to eccentricity and neuroses in general.

Given most brilliant minds manifest eccentric behaviour, I don't think Buddhists will necessarily be too worried about being called eccentric. And, of course, some cultures cherish eccentricity, al la the English, the Scots and the Irish.

Many religious people are frankly neurotic if not severely disturbed and I'd bet you'd find far more dangerously disturbed Muslims and Christians (particularly among adult-age converts who have stumbled through life on the fringe) than Buddhists.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

Many religious people are frankly neurotic if not severely disturbed and I'd bet you'd find far more dangerously disturbed Muslims and Christians (particularly among adult-age converts who have stumbled through life on the fringe) than Buddhists.

Yeah - I guess the quality of the art is a gauge of the level of emotional disturbance. In other words, the best artists are often the most disturbed.

I agree on your comment about adult age converts. They seem to have a major chip on their shoulders. Converts from the Mormon or Evangelical Christian to Atheist are probably the most petulant in my experience, but Muslim converts are not far behind.

I wonder which of the adult age converts would be the worst?

In your opinion, which would win the Olympic Gold Medal for the dummy spit?  

muso wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 11:53am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:41am: Many religious people are frankly neurotic if not severely disturbed and I'd bet you'd find far more dangerously disturbed Muslims and Christians (particularly among adult-age converts who have stumbled through life on the fringe) than Buddhists. Yeah - I guess the quality of the art is a gauge of the level of emotional disturbance. In other words, the best artists are often the most disturbed. I agree on your comment about adult age converts. They seem to have a major chip on their shoulders. Converts from the Mormon or Evangelical Christian to Atheist are probably the most petulant in my experience, but Muslim converts are not far behind. I wonder which of the adult age converts would be the worst? In your opinion, which would win the Olympic Gold Medal for the dummy spit?

That's true about "born again" atheists (I know, I know... using that kind of language can trigger a crack at the old religious atheism chestnut... But its just for rhetorical effect... Like Einstein's "God does not play dice"). I find these new atheists to not be angry at a non-existent god, which of course is an absurdity. They are more angry with the fact that they have been deceived and defrauded by their former (usually enforced) theism.

Other than that I have met Christian and Muslim converts. New Christians tend to chew your ear off about god. The two new Muslims I have met both started crapping on to me, in self-righteous infuriation, about Palestine.

I have only met, but never spoken to a European Hindu convert, unless you count Krishna worshippers... and they appear more like Christians in their "evangelism".

Buddhist "converts" don't really say much at all about their beliefs... How does it go? Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water... After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water... Unless you're into Zen then its "chop water after bearing wooden sky".

It is a bit sad when a society that chooses to exclude religious teaching from children's formal education would be likened to the khmer  rouge.

Your analogy with literature totally escapes me, and the only way I could see a parallel would be if they started teaching that a particular group, or author, was divinely inspired, and everything he says is infallible  and you must adopt all the moral precepts that they mentioned, and also worship them.

The first question you should ask about anything taught to our children is, "can it be harmful to their educational, and/or psychological development?", followed by, "what positives does it bring?"

Kids are naturally honest, tell them most religious stories in an environment where they are confident to freely express themselves and the obvious contradictions and follies of religious teachings are self evident to them, but they are told they must accept what they know makes no sense, or else they will be tortured for an eternity in hell.
However if they accept it as true, then you will live forever in perfect happiness, greater than you could imagine.

If any sane person cannot identify the negative aspects of imposing that sort of disgusting rot onto children as young as 4 years old in our schools, then I say shame on you.

So we know there are many negative aspects to teaching religion to children, like the stick and carrot stories of heaven and hell, and then we have all the included teachings about what is right and wrong, which is very hit and miss, with lots of good morals, but also reprehensibly abhorrent ones as well.

So we can see the negatives, but what positives may come from it, could the positives outweigh the negatives?

You hear many claim that religion gives us our moral principles, but I am categorically certain that we could devise a far better book of moral lessons for children, which did not include the threat of eternal torture to provide them with value, than any of the religious books that people seek to teach to children, like the bible, or the koran.

So there is no reason why kids "NEED" to be taught religion, it is merely the current victims of religious indoctrination, enacting the behaviours they were programmed to.

So we can see that these methods of religious indoctrination have their built in plan for self perpetuation through compulsorily application to subsequent generations.

Should we allow our education system to be complicit in abetting this generational process of indoctrination?

Not in any way shape or form should we.

Schools, and the education system as a whole should be a safe bastion free from religious prejudice, and ideological dogma, and just a place where honest inquiry can be pursued, without caveats imposed by doctrines written by primitive goat herders.

Get religion out of our schools, it does not belong there.
It is time we all tried to make ou

Whilst it's entirely understandable and reasonable for a parent to want to educate his child in his family’s/culture’s religious heritage and reasonable to expect that a child has, through innate psychology, a need to emulate parental behaviour, we all have to accept that religious indoctrination requires forced suspension of incredulity.

And that this coercion runs counter to instinct, which is a tendency to value, from experience, that which the enquirer deems to be true, to discard that which he deems to be false and to question received wisdom. That is the nature of a normal, healthy mind.

I agree, Mozz that it is not only possible to devise a non-religious moral framework that could be taught to children that would be robust enough to allow for a natural tendency towards scepticism, but I don’t believe it would be all that difficult, either. Far easier, I believe, than most would imagine.

The art would be in the telling, because, as the ancient Greeks discovered, humans tend to identify the beautiful with the true.

Education is coercive to begin with. You can't start education with requiring that pupils bring doubt and scepticism to it from the start.

Religion is part of culture, morality, literature, art, not to mention everyday life. To proscribe teaching it is stupid.
Remember, they are not forcing you to believe, they are just giving you a lesson about what your forebears took their bearings from for millenia, while they were building the culture that you wewre born into.
To be cultured, to a very large extent, means being able to engage in the conversation with the past and the future. To be obsessing about the removal of religion from that converstaion is to be almost obcenely narrow minded. It is a call to militant philistinism.

Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 11:08am:

Education is coercive to begin with. You can't start education with requiring that pupils bring doubt and scepticism to it from the start.

I would differentiate between mathematical or grammatical truth and religious truth.


Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 11:08am:

Religion is part of culture, morality, literature, art, not to mention everyday life. To proscribe teaching it is stupid. Remember, they are not forcing you to believe, they are just giving you a lesson about what your forebears took their bearings from for millenia, while they were building the culture that you wewre born into.

If modern religion was taught in the way, say, ancient Greek Pantheonic myths were taught, I'd agree. But its not. In religious schools particularly you are required to believe. The only exceptions would be Jews or Muslims in a Christian school.


Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 11:08am:

To be cultured, to a very large extent, means being able to engage in the conversation with the past and the future. To be obsessing about the removal of religion from that converstaion is to be almost obcenely narrow minded. It is a call to militant philistinism.

Yes, where religion is taught as a facet of cultural history... where a child is taught what his ancestors believed without the insistence that he believe it himself, I agree is healthy. It may even be useful in that it would inform a child such that he is steeled against street peddlers of religion many of whom will transmit any lie about their religion to play on a psychological need of their audience.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 3:44pm:

I have only met, but never spoken to a European Hindu convert, unless you count Krishna worshippers... and they appear more like Christians in their "evangelism".

Hare Krishna's are just plain weird, but mostly harmless.  

There are very few Hindu converts, and they are not always readily accepted by the Hindu community. There is still some bad feeling about the hippy movement's incursions into Hinduism. I have met two Hindu converts, and these two are an exception.  They are totally embraced by the local Hindu community because of their contributions.

There is differing opinion on conversion - some Hindus believe that you must be born into Hinduism. Hinduism is much more of a culture than a religion as I understand it. Most educated Hindus have a bit of a snigger at Ganeesh and Krishna in conversation.

Hindus don't actually prosletyse like the monotheists do, but it's a wonderful all inclusive, non selfish set of philosophies, a bit like the polytheist religions that gave rise to Judaism and Christianity. There are some pretty nasty local customs of course.

Judaism was once a form of Henotheism.  They believed in many gods, but just worshipped one.  

The new guys on the block (the monotheists) are the main problem. Like most new guys on the block they have a kind of arrogance (religious arrogance) that can be irritating at best, and dangerous at its worst.

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 12:08pm:

The new guys on the block (the monotheists) are the main problem. Like most new guys on the block they have a kind of arrogance (religious arrogance) that can be irritating at best, and dangerous at its worst.

Yes, the doctrinal combination of proselytisation, exclusivity and claims of monopoly of truth that characterises the two great monotheisms makes for a dangerous outcome, that not even the fundamental attribute of monism itself can defeat...

Because, in practise, the One in Mecca is not the same as the One in Jerusalem, Rome, Mumbai or Lhasa.

Because the faithful of the great monotheisms value exclusivity far more than oneness, to which they accede begrudgingly and then only from logical necessity.

OK, when you are a kid and you first hear the bible stories, it does call for the acceptance of magical forces that control everything.

Here is a flas card they could use to give the kiddies an overview of what they will be taught.

It is the non-scary version which does not mention the fact this magic dude is watching you every single second, and if you break any of his rules, he will torture you in hell forever, just being burned alive for all time.
We will save that lesson until after we con them into believing this crap first though, otherwise it will be less effective instilling fear into their young minds.

---

Parody is a good thing. Dismissing scores of generations that ultimately added up to you is being trapped in the 'now' to a pitiful extent. Do you really think that all your own ancestors believed in nothing more than what this schoolboy snigger says?

Do you really think that the great expressions of the human spirit in music, architecture, literature over the last 2000 years were motivated by nothing more than what this silly spoof says?

Soren wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:

Parody is a good thing. Dismissing scores of generations that ultimately added up to you is being trapped in the 'now' to a pitiful extent. Do you really think that all your own ancestors believed in nothing more than what this schoolboy snigger says?

Time to cork the sherry bottle, Soren... You're getting a bit maudlin.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 11:42pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 10:31pm: Parody is a good thing. Dismissing scores of generations that ultimately added up to you is being trapped in the 'now' to a pitiful extent. Do you really think that all your own ancestors believed in nothing more than what this schoolboy snigger says? Time to cork the sherry bottle, Soren... You're getting a bit maudlin.

You tend to say that to everything that is not a nudge and a wing towards banal vulgarity. Why is that?

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 10:55am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 11:42pm: Soren wrote on Apr 18th, 2010 at 10:31pm: Parody is a good thing. Dismissing scores of generations that ultimately added up to you is being trapped in the 'now' to a pitiful extent. Do you really think that all your own ancestors believed in nothing more than what this schoolboy snigger says? Time to cork the sherry bottle, Soren... You're getting a bit maudlin. You tend to say that to everything that is not a nudge and a wing towards banal vulgarity. Why is that?

Not always, but apparent indignation over a triviality conjures up an image of a maudlin old man on the sauce, is all.

Conjure away.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 3:51pm:

Conjure away.

Danke sehr.

Actually I was reading Flaubert on the greater and lesser banalities of life (he thought that was the only choice) and that's what gave me the a propos to reprimand Mozz for instinctual preference for trivial banality. Why chose the pedestrian, vulgar banalities of athesims when you can have all the art and literature and grand banalities that have the additional merit of adding up to who you are?

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Actually I was reading Flaubert on the greater and lesser banalities of life (he thought that was the only choice) and that's what gave me the a propos to reprimand Mozz for instinctual preference for trivial banality. Why chose the pedestrian, vulgar banalities of athesims when you can have all the art and literature and grand banalities that have the additional merit of adding up to who you are?

You think there aren't vulgar banalities of theisms? You think it's all prancing angels, flying cherubs, apostolic rapture and corporeal assumptions?

Someone's got to clean the shitters.

Quote:

Actually I was reading Flaubert on the greater and lesser banalities of life (he thought that was the only choice) and that's what gave me the a propos to reprimand Mozz for instinctual preference for trivial banality. Why chose the pedestrian, vulgar banalities of athesims when you can have all the art and literature and grand banalities that have the additional merit of adding up to who you are?

Quite possibly the silliest contention you have ever put forth Soren.

The "vulgar banalities of atheisms", as you so ineptly put it, is in effect life, in it's totality, and that "REALITY" is neither vulgar, or banal, by nature, it is wondrous and awe inspiring, but for the rational man, not so awe inspiring that it requires he invent an imaginary, mystical presence to relate it all to.

Now you may continue on in your delusional world where only those who have bound their psyche to concepts of imaginary deities have the ability to appreciate and enjoy fine art, music, or culture in any of it's many forms, and I will continue in mine, knowing that you are off your freakin rocker. ;D

Of course, there's all those other things that our ancestors may have got up to that may not be the kind of things you'd like to associate so much with your dear old great great great great great great grandpappies...

Like witch burning and Jew slaying.

CS Lewis was an atheist into his 30s. Tolkien and Lewis, both teaching at Oxford, talked a lot and finally Tolkien converted Lewis by appealing to his imagination.
I tell stories to my kids and they know they are not true, but they see that there is something in them, especially fantastic stories. You can read Tolstoy's 23 stories for children and see what you make of them.

Being always stuck in the mud of the moment is unbearably banal.

Quote:

Being always stuck in the mud of the moment is unbearably banal.

Speak for yourself Soren, the moment is all that there is, and it is only banal if that is what you make it.

Now obviously people who do not believe in deities can, and do, enjoy using their imaginations, the difference to theists is that we can still tell the difference.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

CS Lewis was an atheist into his 30s. Tolkien and Lewis, both teaching at Oxford, talked a lot and finally Tolkien converted Lewis by appealing to his imagination.

Tolkein wasn't all that big on witch burning and Jew slaying. He de-Christianised his mission... His mission being - to restore to the British people, their Saxon mythological heritage, up to a glimpse of what it was before the Norman Invasion.

No god, no Jesus... just ancient Nordic myth.

Atheism lives off its imaginative heritage but adds nothing except the Myth of Sisyphus. It is as fertile as that myth. Atheism has no ethical or aesthetic grounding except what it has inherited. I say this as a statement of simple fact rather than as a 'challenge'.
With this in mind I think a more discreet atheism is advisable, instead of the shouty kind. Unless, of coure, you don't mind hodling a view whose ethics and aesthetic are logically undefendable.

After all, there is not one single ethical or aesthetic standard that you can logically and consistently defend  except those that can be traced back to some sort of theistic world view.

Anthony Flew died last week. See what he made of this whole issue.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 9:09pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19th, 2010 at 5:29pm: CS Lewis was an atheist into his 30s. Tolkien and Lewis, both teaching at Oxford, talked a lot and finally Tolkien converted Lewis by appealing to his imagination. Tolkein wasn't all that big on witch burning and Jew slaying. He de-Christianised his mission... His mission being - to restore to the British people, their Saxon mythological heritage, up to a glimpse of what it was before the Norman Invasion. No god, no Jesus... just ancient Nordic myth.

"Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

Such a revelation changed Lewis' whole conception of Christianity, precipitating his conversion.

Lewis was one of the select group of friends, known collectively as the Inklings, who read the manuscript of Tolkien's timeless classic, The Lord of the Rings, as it was being written. This work, which has been voted the greatest book of the 20th century in a succession of polls, was described by its author as "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

Or this:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gvfl1RMKW-YC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=a+story+shaped+world+mythopoeia&source=bl&ots=_3F49weT4a&sig=FO7UBZXjJVGv9KybzZIF6qnSW9k&hl=en&ei=JFjMS92VPI2csgPIjNzxAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=a%20story%20shaped%20world%20mythopoeia&f=false


Tolkien's Mythopoeia

http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/mythopoeia.html

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 11:06pm:

Atheism lives off its imaginative heritage but adds nothing except the Myth of Sisyphus. It is as fertile as that myth. Atheism has no ethical or aesthetic grounding except what it has inherited. I say this as a statement of simple fact rather than as a 'challenge'.

You write as if you really believe that theism is the sole, exclusive font of imagination. Do you really think its impossible to imagine a supernatural alter-reality without the psycho-pathology of believing it actually exists?

Authors live for years with characters in their mind who don't exist. The healthy ones understand that they are composites of people they have met, without descending into the delusional wasteland they would find themselves were they to mistake them for real beings.

They’d be the first to grasp that the mind can build abstractive entities and scenes in parts and understand its innate creative ability can stitch them together to make them completely new and unexperienced (even supernatural) people, places and events… Just like in dreams.

You don't have to be deluded by theism to imagine alternate worlds.

I am not saying that atheists are devoid of imagination. Not at all. WHat I am saying is that atheists are devoid of any ethical or aesthetic grounding that is not derived from theism. There is no non-derivative atheist ethics or aesthetics. As with everything else, atheism is inevitably contingent on its theist foundations.
That's all I am saying.

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:03am:

I am not saying that atheists are devoid of imagination. Not at all. WHat I am saying is that atheists are devoid of any ethical or aesthetic grounding that is not derived from theism. There is no non-derivative atheist ethics or aesthetics. As with everything else, atheism is inevitably contingent on its theist foundations. That's all I am saying.

You're assuming that its impossible for one to feel empathy for another because one does, by instinct, without the intellectualising of it that leads to a deistic cause . No one imagines that "its a god that makes me feel hungry", why should they necessarily infer that "Because I empathise with you, god exists"?

Don't you think its noteworthy that Tolkein never refers to god, deities or theistic worship throughout any part of The Hobbit or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:30am:

Don't you think its noteworthy that Tolkein never refers to god, deities or theistic worship throughout any part of The Hobbit or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy?

No, I don't. Is that some sort of criterion?
Does Lewis refer to Jesus in Narnia?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:14am:

Soren wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 12:03am: I am not saying that atheists are devoid of imagination. Not at all. WHat I am saying is that atheists are devoid of any ethical or aesthetic grounding that is not derived from theism. There is no non-derivative atheist ethics or aesthetics. As with everything else, atheism is inevitably contingent on its theist foundations. That's all I am saying. You're assuming that its impossible for one to feel empathy for another because one does, by instinct, without the intellectualising of it that leads to a deistic cause . No one imagines that "its a god that makes me feel hungry", why should they necessarily infer that "Because I empathise with you, god exists"?

Empathy is not sufficient. Something must shape those feelings.
Anyway, ethics is not a biological even like hunger.

Well you cannot go past a theist for providing arrogance in their ignorance.

All the great religions that you claim as inspiration for man's true worth, are merely amalgamations of earlier pagan myths and rituals, which were just tweaked to suit the changing times.

The basic need for god springs from humans fear of the unknown, so if you name it, give it form, give it human attributes, then you make it less unknown, less scary, and you have created your first god.
So the gods of tribal folklore gave way to more unified "boss" gods, as societies evolved and on it went, as civilisation grew, so did the gods they invented, in respect to being all encompassing creator gods , rather than individual elemental gods.

So your position that these human creations that you worship have a beginning with yahwey or jesus or allah is even more naive than it is preposterous, while I admit that jesus could play a cool sidekick in some superhero comic, you need a thunder god like THOR to get a real kickass action role model to attribute all of lifes inspirations to have stemmed from.

God evolves, as humans evolve, and his changes over the generations are quite apparent, so be careful who you invest your faith in, he may be superceded next week.


or just have a laugh and forget about it all.

Quote:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said: "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he asked. I said: "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious or atheist?" "Religious." "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist." "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" "Reformation of 1915!" To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

;D

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:45am:

Empathy is not sufficient. Something must shape those feelings. Anyway, ethics is not a biological even like hunger.

Empathy is the sine qua non of morality.

To be sure, (nearly) every society that has ever existed had (at least at some time) a cultural heritage that part of which was founded on myth and the supernatural.

That these myths are tenacious or serve a utilitarian purpose, does not necessarily make them true nor, even, is it necessary that people believe them to be true to have the same effect as if they were.

Few, if any, Jews would consider themselves de-Judaised as a consequence of accepting that the myth of Moses is just that, a myth. So the story of Exodus, post-acceptance, continues to be the founding myth of the Jewish people, defining who they are and their relationship to their perceived homeland.

God stories don’t have to be true to have the same effect as if they were. Yes, one who disbelieves the proposition that god exists, can agree that adherence to a religious idea may serve a desirable utilitarian purpose… Without having to agree that the myth is any less a myth.

And, of course, the great advantage to the disbeliever in his disbelief is that he can, in the words of Paul himself, ‘put away childish things’ if and when he decides that the myth no longer serves a useful or positive purpose in his life or the life of the society it once served … In the same way that Greek gods were consigned to myth and history… Which is not to say that anyone would deny that the Greek pantheon defines what it means to be Greek, disbelief in its objective reality notwithstanding.

Just as you say your kids enjoy mythical stories without the need to believe they are true.

All they need to learn is how to suspend incredulity to enjoy the tale and, to have a healthy mind, remember to (and be encouraged to) re-engage their instinctive skepticism when the tale is told.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:15am:

The basic need for god springs from humans fear of the unknown, so if you name it, give it form, give it human attributes, then you make it less unknown, less scary, and you have created your first god.

Then, even more importantly, devise rituals through the practise of which they hope to manipulate the ultimate arbiter of chance, fortune and fate, for the same reasons children are motivated to manipulate their parents.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 12:30am:

Don't you think its noteworthy that Tolkein never refers to god, deities or theistic worship throughout any part of The Hobbit or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy?

You'd have to read the Silmarillion.

muso wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:58am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 12:30am: Don't you think its noteworthy that Tolkein never refers to god, deities or theistic worship throughout any part of The Hobbit or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy? You'd have to read the Silmarillion.

Yeah... But all those negative reviews... Bad karma.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:34am:

Soren wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 12:45am: Empathy is not sufficient. Something must shape those feelings. Anyway, ethics is not a biological even like hunger. Empathy is the sine qua non of morality. To be sure, (nearly) every society that has ever existed had (at least at some time) a cultural heritage that part of which was founded on myth and the supernatural. That these myths are tenacious or serve a utilitarian purpose, does not necessarily make them true nor, even, is it necessary that people believe them to be true to have the same effect as if they were. Few, if any, Jews would consider themselves de-Judaised as a consequence of accepting that the myth of Moses is just that, a myth. So the story of Exodus, post-acceptance, continues to be the founding myth of the Jewish people, defining who they are and their relationship to their perceived homeland. God stories don’t have to be true to have the same effect as if they were. Yes, one who disbelieves the proposition that god exists, can agree that adherence to a religious idea may serve a desirable utilitarian purpose… Without having to agree that the myth is any less a myth. And, of course, the great advantage to the disbeliever in his disbelief is that he can, in the words of Paul himself, ‘put away childish things’ if and when he decides that the myth no longer serves a useful or positive purpose in his life or the life of the society it once served … In the same way that Greek gods were consigned to myth and history… Which is not to say that anyone would deny that the Greek pantheon defines what it means to be Greek, disbelief in its objective reality notwithstanding. Just as you say your kids enjoy mythical stories without the need to believe they are true. All they need to learn is how to suspend incredulity to enjoy the tale and, to have a healthy mind, remember to (and be encouraged to) re-engage their instinctive skepticism when the tale is told.

Is this true?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/


There is more than a whiff of the naif about all this 'it's just...' and 'all they need to learn is...' stuff.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:15am:

The basic need for god springs from humans fear of the unknown, so if you name it, give it form, give it human attributes, then you make it less unknown, less scary, and you have created your first god.

You speak like you knew this for a fact.

Of course people give god/s human attributes. We give the whole world human attrributes. After all religion is about our relationship with the world and with each other.

To my mind the difference between atheism and religion is similar to the difference between journalism and literature, a police report and a great story telling.

Would you say that for example, Dostoyevsky's The Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov is not true? Or that Beethoven's Spring Sonata is not true? Hope is not true? Love? They certainly don't have the kind of truth qualities that you keep presenting because, to begin with, they are not 'factual'.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/grand.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAcWGVC4Nqc


On the other hand, you have the proverb that says no-one can lie as well as an eyewitness. Facts are always filtered through some non-factual motivations and world view. You have to be very, very naive to think that facts simply 'are' and that you are actually guided by them in their pure objectivity.

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:10am:

Is this true? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ There is more than a whiff of the naif about all this 'it's just...' and 'all they need to learn is...' stuff.

Not a lot of room in 5 minutes and 300 words... Except avoid sophistry, I spose... ;)

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

To my mind the difference between atheism and religion is similar to the difference between journalism and literature, a police report and a great story telling. Would you say that for example, Dostoyevsky's The Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov is not true? Or that Beethoven's Spring Sonata is not true? Hope is not true? Love? They certainly don't have the kind of truth qualities that you keep presenting because, to begin with, they are not 'factual'.

Or Gimpel the Fool.

Or The Penitent (by the same author).

Good old Gimpel... Believed everything whether he actually believed it or not ;D

All right for fools, I guess... Who aren't troubled by the need to question anything.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 1:07pm:

Good old Gimpel... Believed everything whether he actually believed it or not ;D All right for fools, I guess... Who aren't troubled by the need to question anything.

Who know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUUa_z0OFsc

Look at this and tell me there is no god!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6_SbflSwAg

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkH0cPzg-IU&feature=related

No natural selection or survival of the fittest can inspire these.


Where do you put this stuff? A beautiful lie? That would be so banal that even athesists would shrink from uttering it without an ironic smirk....

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:

Look at this and tell me there is no god!!!

Or that He is not an Englishman....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4

There is no god, and a big fat spliff, and Led Zep doing an encore of Stairway to Heaven, is far more transcendental for me, but still not something I need to ascribe to divine inspiration.

I can be awe inspired by the absolute beauty of slipping through a crystal cavern on my hand carved creation, solid, but fluid, beneath my feet, and simply be content in the wonder that it is, without feeling the need to create an imaginary being as grand designer.

The grand designer concept fails for me, on every possible level, so I content myself with just enjoying what is.

But that's just it - why crawl and slip, high only on a spliff, when you can soar? Suit yourself, though, I can't give you wings.

You can chose to be a be a plonker - but why be a plonker when you have only one go? It IS a failure of imagination to be a plonker, on weed.

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 3:13pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 1:07pm: Good old Gimpel... Believed everything whether he actually believed it or not ;D All right for fools, I guess... Who aren't troubled by the need to question anything. Who know? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUUa_z0OFsc

Gold... Pure gold... And god don't got to be, to listen to this kind of old raconteur all day and into the night...

Pullup man, you can say what ya like about god, but don't go dissin' da weed.  

I seriously miss pot sometimes, many of the absolute best times of my life I have been as bent as a three dollar note.
Unforunately the associated lifestyle, loses some of it's attractions after you hit your thirties, but I am not such a self righteous jerk as to declare that just because I no longer enjoy it, every one else should stop too.

Each to their own, in their own time.

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 9:55pm:

But that's just it - why crawl and slip, high only on a spliff, when you can soar? Suit yourself, though, I can't give you wings.

Never been there then, old fella?

I don't reckon I'd ever really trust anyone who hasn't pulled a cone.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 9:55pm: But that's just it - why crawl and slip, high only on a spliff, when you can soar? Suit yourself, though, I can't give you wings. Never been there then, old fella? I don't reckon I'd ever really trust anyone who hasn't pulled a cone.

Very plebian of ya.

Yeah, tried it- gaudy stuff. Made me feel like one of the herd, even anticipating it.

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:38pm:

Very plebian of ya. Yeah, tried it- gaudy stuff. Made me feel like one of the herd, even anticipating it.

Ah, go on... Don't be so geriatric... Live a little... Buy a little baggie and blow it on your own.... to Rachmaninov rhapsodies, if you must.

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:

Look at this and tell me there is no god!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6_SbflSwAg

Ah.. Horowitz.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 9:55pm: But that's just it - why crawl and slip, high only on a spliff, when you can soar? Suit yourself, though, I can't give you wings. Never been there then, old fella? I don't reckon I'd ever really trust anyone who hasn't pulled a cone.

Don't trust me then. Anybody who works for me is also subject to random testing. I don't trust people who are addicted to drugs.

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:32am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 10:24pm: Soren wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 9:55pm: But that's just it - why crawl and slip, high only on a spliff, when you can soar? Suit yourself, though, I can't give you wings. Never been there then, old fella? I don't reckon I'd ever really trust anyone who hasn't pulled a cone. Don't trust me then. Anybody who works for me is also subject to random testing. I don't trust people who are addicted to drugs.

Don't get puritanical for the rush of indignation.

Having drunk that beer the other day, are you now an alcoholic?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:39am:

muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 8:32am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 10:24pm: Soren wrote on Apr 20th, 2010 at 9:55pm: But that's just it - why crawl and slip, high only on a spliff, when you can soar? Suit yourself, though, I can't give you wings. Never been there then, old fella? I don't reckon I'd ever really trust anyone who hasn't pulled a cone. Don't trust me then. Anybody who works for me is also subject to random testing. I don't trust people who are addicted to drugs. Don't get puritanical for the rush of indignation. Having drunk that beer the other day, are you now an alcoholic?

LOL. I don't touch alcohol. I even use non-alcoholic mouthwash.

I just said that I don't trust drug addicts.  I didn't mean to imply that if you'd tried cannabis then you were a drug addict.

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 9:25am:

LOL. I don't touch alcohol.

Gawd  :o

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 9:28am:

muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 9:25am: LOL. I don't touch alcohol. Gawd  :o

Everybody is different. I still have a soft drink with friends who are drinking alcohol. I'm not self-righteous about it.

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 9:29am:

Everybody is different.

Er... I'm not....

Soren wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 11:55am:

muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 9:29am: Everybody is different.   Er... I'm not....

Well you must be the exception then. Does that make you different?  ;)

Soren wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 11:55am:

muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2010 at 9:29am: Everybody is different.   Er... I'm not....

touche, lol.

Well you guys are all so different, but you share a common desire to make the world a better place, and a great sense of humour.

Soren, your humour is so dry at times, I absolutely love it, well done ol' chap.

Now in regard to the commonality we share, in wishing to see the world become a better place, I think we also share the idea that we know best, how to achieve that, well at least I do, now I just need to get you guys to agree with me. ;)

The excellent Theodore Dalrymple wrote in 2007:

There seem to me three main points to discuss. First, the existence of God; second, the actual historical record of organized religion; third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence without God.

The arguments for and against the existence of God are by now pretty well rehearsed, and I do not think that any of the new atheists (I call them that because their books came out at about the same time) add anything much to them. They are not entirely to blame for this: it would take a very great philosopher to do so. I certainly have nothing new to say on the matter.

Second, the historiography of religion employed by most of these authors, though admittedly not by Daniel Dennett, is one of bringing up only damning evidence. This does not seem to me to be an honest appraisal of religion’s role in human history, but one that is emotionally parti pris and fundamentally intolerant. It would be possible to write a history of medicine using only the stupidity and ignorance of doctors, and the harm that they had done, as material; but that would not be the history of medicine in its entirety.

Third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence are considerable, and I do not think the abandonment of religion would make things any easier. Many people would find the reverse to be true.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html?sr=show


Ah, clarity of thought - ain't it wonderful!

Soren wrote on Jun 24^th, 2010 at 10:25pm:

The excellent Theodore Dalrymple wrote in 2007: There seem to me three main points to discuss. First, the existence of God; second, the actual historical record of organized religion; third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence without God. The arguments for and against the existence of God are by now pretty well rehearsed, and I do not think that any of the new atheists (I call them that because their books came out at about the same time) add anything much to them. They are not entirely to blame for this: it would take a very great philosopher to do so. I certainly have nothing new to say on the matter. Second, the historiography of religion employed by most of these authors, though admittedly not by Daniel Dennett, is one of bringing up only damning evidence. This does not seem to me to be an honest appraisal of religion’s role in human history, but one that is emotionally parti pris and fundamentally intolerant. It would be possible to write a history of medicine using only the stupidity and ignorance of doctors, and the harm that they had done, as material; but that would not be the history of medicine in its entirety. Third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence are considerable, and I do not think the abandonment of religion would make things any easier. Many people would find the reverse to be true. http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html?sr=show Ah, clarity of thought - ain't it wonderful!

What is comes down to, is that on matters of existence and metaphysics, we are probably all wrong. All that we can say for certain on existence is that we exist. Everything else is conjecture based on observation, or at best, theory that works within certain boundaries.  

Philosophers invariably justify their own deep-seated beliefs. What can be said about the metaphysical difficulty of human existence without a monotheist creator can equally be said for  a pothytheist creationist scenario (eg the Sumerian pantheon) or the Deist worldview for that matter. Such a position doesn't uniquely justify Judaism or Islam, Christianity or Jainism for example in favour of the rest.  

There is also a huge leap of faith between 'first cause' and 'deity'. Even the requirement for a first cause, however valid that may be,  doesn't preclude a purely atheist position.

It's interesting how conservative Atheists like Theodore Dalrymple and myself tend to take sympathetic or indifferent attitudes towards religion and usually find evangelical atheists irritating, while leftist Atheists always (see Richard Dawkins' forums) ascribe the cause of everything bad in the world to religion.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2010 at 3:42pm:

It's interesting how conservative Atheists like Theodore Dalrymple and myself tend to take sympathetic or indifferent attitudes towards religion and usually find evangelical atheists irritating, while leftist Atheists always (see Richard Dawkins' forums) ascribe the cause of everything bad in the world to religion.

If you wouldn't mind....could you define "evangelical atheists"??????

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2010 at 3:42pm:

It's interesting how conservative Atheists like Theodore Dalrymple and myself tend to take sympathetic or indifferent attitudes towards religion and usually find evangelical atheists irritating, while leftist Atheists always (see Richard Dawkins' forums) ascribe the cause of everything bad in the world to religion.

I think you'll find that even the likes of Hitchens concedes that most wars have not started over religious issues.

"Our prefrontal lobes are too small while our adrenal glands are too big".

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2010 at 4:10pm:

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 25th, 2010 at 3:42pm: It's interesting how conservative Atheists like Theodore Dalrymple and myself tend to take sympathetic or indifferent attitudes towards religion and usually find evangelical atheists irritating, while leftist Atheists always (see Richard Dawkins' forums) ascribe the cause of everything bad in the world to religion. If you wouldn't mind....could you define "evangelical atheists"??????

LOL. In my view, the most irritating atheists from experience are the ex-evangelical Christians and ex-mormons. Ex-Muslims are a close third.

They seem to have this compulsive need to proselytize. For example, they love to post in forums about the negative side of religion, how we need to protect children from brainwashing etc.

Most atheists don't give a damn about trying to 'deconvert' people or change society in some way.  Evangelicals do.

muso wrote on Jun 26^th, 2010 at 9:30pm:

Most atheists don't give a damn about trying to 'deconvert' people or change society in some way.  Evangelicals do.

Militant anti-theists would be a more accurate definition than evangelical.

muso wrote on Jun 26^th, 2010 at 9:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26th, 2010 at 4:10pm: aikmann4 wrote on Jun 25th, 2010 at 3:42pm: It's interesting how conservative Atheists like Theodore Dalrymple and myself tend to take sympathetic or indifferent attitudes towards religion and usually find evangelical atheists irritating, while leftist Atheists always (see Richard Dawkins' forums) ascribe the cause of everything bad in the world to religion. If you wouldn't mind....could you define "evangelical atheists"?????? LOL. In my view, the most irritating atheists from experience are the ex-evangelical Christians and ex-mormons. Ex-Muslims are a close third. They seem to have this compulsive need to proselytize. For example, they love to post in forums about the negative side of religion, how we need to protect children from brainwashing etc. Most atheists don't give a damn about trying to 'deconvert' people or change society in some way.  Evangelicals do.

Well thanks for that condescendingly arrogant definition muso, it is a pity that some of your tolerance for religious idiocy cannot find it's way toward respecting the valid concerns of those who object to seeing children indoctrinated with ridiculous, religious prejudices from their earliest childhoods.
The simple , and I would contend unarguable, fact, is that religions impose their views upon society, and use the delusional belief that it is their supernaturally ordained right, and duty to do so.

These radical anti-theists merely wish to see these deluded nutjobs stop it. Keep your
religion to yourself, and especially do not seek to have it imposed upon society.

Go out in the wild and wave your willys at the sun for all I care, but do not seek to impose your beliefs upon society, because your beliefs are delusional, often harmful, and have no merit based upon your claims of being told so by an imaginary friend.

Morals can be determined by societal needs, and standards, and do not require a preacher, parson or pope, to validate them.

So when theists beliefs coincide with those of their society we have no problem, but when they clash, we do, and that is why we need to remind them that society rejects their claims of divine right to declare their own standards on anything other than their own very personal, and private morality.

Religion can do whatever it wants, as long as it does not place itself above the society it is contained in, but I do not know of any religion that does not place itself above all societies, because of their ridiculous claims of supernatural guidance, which is utterly disdainful of secular laws and standards, and only acquiesces to those standards at, or for, it's own convenience.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 11:28am:

These radical anti-theists merely wish to see these deluded nutjobs stop it. Keep your religion to yourself, and especially do not seek to have it imposed upon society.

To which one can just as easily reply: keep your atheism to yourself and do not try to impose it on society.  The point is that there is no better foundation for atheism than for theism: they both justify themselves from within their own logic


Quote:

Morals can be determined by societal needs, and standards, and do not require a preacher, parson or pope, to validate them.

Isn't this an attempt to publicly persuade people to accept your convictions (viz. preaching). Society is a conversation, an argument, not a chemical reaction. Which point of view, which philosophical conviction is the 'natural' guarian of those 'societal needs'?

Everybody all together now: 'Mine!"

So we have a conversatation.




Quote:

So when theists beliefs coincide with those of their society we have no problem, but when they clash, we do, and that is why we need to remind them that society rejects their claims of divine right to declare their own standards on anything other than their own very personal, and private morality. Religion can do whatever it wants, as long as it does not place itself above the society it is contained in, but I do not know of any religion that does not place itself above all societies, because of their ridiculous claims of supernatural guidance, which is utterly disdainful of secular laws and standards, and only acquiesces to those standards at, or for, it's own convenience.

You are treating the nation state (a fairly recent invention) as if it was the law of nature, discovered at last, and so part of the natural order while 'humanity' was a mere artificial invention of superstitious priests at the dawn of history.

Actually, I would suggest that: the concept of 'nation state' is fast becoming embedded in corporativist fables - since most of the largest entities in this world know no national borders, have no national allegiences and care little about the needs and rights of citizens and the sustainability of their life-giving environment...

It is time to challenge and resoundingly reject corporativist agendas!

Religion will eventually destroy the whole world.
I am convinced of that.
It's evil & must be assigned to the dust bin of history.
We already have a war on terror based on religion.
It has gone on longer than WW2.
If terrorists ever get hold of nuclear weapons
that will be the end.

(That is not to say that there are many genuine people
involved in religion who are of great service to mankind.)

Equitist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 12:39pm:

Actually, I would suggest that: the concept of 'nation state' is fast becoming embedded in corporativist fables - since most of the largest entities in this world know no national borders, have no national allegiences and care little about the needs and rights of citizens and the sustainability of their life-giving environment... It is time to challenge and resoundingly reject corporativist agendas!

Why? At least their leaders are appointed on the basis of merit, and corporations are a lot more efficient than democratically elected governments. Democratically elected leaders can also be totally dismal. Can't you see it now? - New World Inc.

(Don't take that point too seriously, but I like to knock down paradigms  ;D )

Soren wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 12:21pm:

To which one can just as easily reply: keep your atheism to yourself and do not try to impose it on society.  The point is that there is no better foundation for atheism than for theism: they both justify themselves from within their own logic

That's as close as I'm going to get to my own views on the subject from anybody else on this forum.

Scary.

muso wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:28pm:

Why? At least their leaders are appointed on the basis of merit,

Merit? And blood, like monarchies.


muso wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:28pm:

and corporations are a lot more efficient than democratically elected governments.

Yes, full accountability is messy and inefficient.

Soren wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 12:21pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 27th, 2010 at 11:28am: These radical anti-theists merely wish to see these deluded nutjobs stop it. Keep your religion to yourself, and especially do not seek to have it imposed upon society. To which one can just as easily reply: keep your atheism to yourself and do not try to impose it on society.  The point is that there is no better foundation for atheism than for theism: they both justify themselves from within their own logic Quote: Morals can be determined by societal needs, and standards, and do not require a preacher, parson or pope, to validate them. Isn't this an attempt to publicly persuade people to accept your convictions (viz. preaching). Society is a conversation, an argument, not a chemical reaction. Which point of view, which philosophical conviction is the 'natural' guarian of those 'societal needs'? Everybody all together now: 'Mine!" So we have a conversatation. [quote] So when theists beliefs coincide with those of their society we have no problem, but when they clash, we do, and that is why we need to remind them that society rejects their claims of divine right to declare their own standards on anything other than their own very personal, and private morality. Religion can do whatever it wants, as long as it does not place itself above the society it is contained in, but I do not know of any religion that does not place itself above all societies, because of their ridiculous claims of supernatural guidance, which is utterly disdainful of secular laws and standards, and only acquiesces to those standards at, or for, it's own convenience.

That's sort of the problem soren...
Athiests (well Athiests like me anyway) don't really object to religious instruction per se...but we do think it should be kept in churches and religious schools..
Why should 'secular' schools teach 'compulsory' religious instruction??

Why should ALL children, even the children of non-religious, agnostic or athiest parents, have to do 'scripture' or religious studies....even when their parents have 'chosen' to NOT send them to 'Religious Schools' or Churches????

If I choose to send my child to a NON-Religious school, wouldn't that be because I DO NOT want my child to receive religious instruction AT school??

Religious instruction is, or SHOULD be a choice, either by the parent or the child......so there HAS to be an educational system that leaves the religious training up to the parent...at the church or house of worship that the PARENTS choose.....

To be balanced and fair, there must be some educational institutions that don't include religious instruction....as things stands...there aren't ....

THAT is what athiests want.......an educational choice....somewhere to send their children that will NOT try to indoctrinate them into a religion.....

There is a fair bit of headlong rush and clamour into forgetfulness in all this 'why have religious instruction' debate.

First, it is not compulsory. Second, you don't have to believe it even in Catholic schools. Above all, however, Christianity is the single most impotrtant cultural heritage of this country, of the whole of Europe and North America and various other dots around the world where European influence has been significant. You would not understand your own culture, laws, literature, history art etc, etc, etc,  if you didn't understand Chritianity.

I, for one, will probably never 'understand' the logic behind any organised spiritual organisation that worships and/or fears an ancient doG-figure - not least because the original texts were written in a time when objective science was in its infancy, education was limited and superstition was rife...

Moreover, I reckon that we could (should) do without religion in law and government - and education...

Equitist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 8:53pm:

Moreover, I reckon that we could (should) do without religion in law and government - and education...

I just said you wouldn't understand your own culture without understanding its Christian foundations and heritage. To which you say - we don't want it in education.

I was too optimistic when I said that there is a headlong rush into forgetting. You and millions of others have already arrived in Oblivion and demand not to be disturbed there.

Soren wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

Equitist wrote on Jun 27th, 2010 at 8:53pm: Moreover, I reckon that we could (should) do without religion in law and government - and education... I just said you wouldn't understand your own culture without understanding its Christian foundations and heritage. To which you say - we don't want it in education. I was too optimistic when I said that there is a headlong rush into forgetting. You and millions of others have already arrived in Oblivion and demand not to be disturbed there.

Fair cop - especially since my post wasn't an accurate statement of what I was thinking...

I was responding to the Xtian aspect of the original post but I tried to comment about the place of religion generally...

For what it's worth, although I am atheist, I was reluctant to impose my concluded 'opinion' onto my own kids...

I have therefore allowed them to choose, whether or not to attend religious instruction at school - with a proviso that they made a decision in the first couple of weeks of school and stuck with their decision for a whole year at a time (easily enforced when parental authority is required)...

They are both in high school now - but, at various stages during primary school, they chose different options, on the bases of the persons delivering religious instruction (and non-scripture) and/or what their closest peers were allowed or not allowed to do...

As it happens, my youngest son has also joined a Xtian youth group recently - with a slightly older female friend. Because the girl's parents have only one car and one is a shift worker, I have volunteered to be the one to drop them off and collect them each week.  They make me look bad because they're always late - they don't want to get there until the obligatory Bible stuff is over but they enjoy the company and atmosphere afterwards...

As you can see, in practice, I am more open to exposing my own kids to religious teachings than my earlier post suggested...

So, I would like to clarify, that I broadly support some form of values-based and spiritual teaching - as long as evolution theory is incorporated...

Moreover, I would prefer that any religious education of minors was broad and objective - so that kids were taught the commonalities and differences between many religions, as well as relevant historical facts (such as religious and human evolution, divergence and convergence)....

LOL...clear as mud, eh!? Still, I trust you will get the gist...

Soren wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

. Above all, however, Christianity is the single most impotrtant cultural heritage of this country, of the whole of Europe and North America and various other dots around the world where European influence has been significant. You would not understand your own culture, laws, literature, history art etc, etc, etc,  if you didn't understand Chritianity.

- and here was I thinking it was Microsoft that held that distinction.  :P

Well no surprise here, the religious have things all arse backwards as usual.

So let us start at the start shall we, and that is just what religions teach to kids.
They teach them that god is real, and he created them, and everything else in the universe, and keeps an eternal vigilant eye on them, and everyone, and everything else.
He needs us to worship him, and we do that by following the rules he has handed down through obscure ancient middle eastern men thousands of years ago.
If we do all that, then we go to heaven when we die, so look upon your life as a test from god, the ultimate entrance exam if you like.

Now the penalty for failing the test is not just not getting into heaven, you are actually given eternal detention in a place more horrible, more painful, more distressing than your worst nightmares, and that is called hell, so follow the rules, and do as you are told, or that is where you are going, forever, and ever, and ever.
This is a one shot test, you are either in or out.

It goes on with a lot of detail about the rules, and so forth, but that is the basic message they push on to kids as soon as they are old enough to sit still long enough, usually 4 or 5 years old.

For those poor sick bastards that actually were so brainwashed as kids as to still actually believe that absolute load of tommy rot, on into their adulthood, then they desperately want their kids to learn the rules as early as possible, so they can go to heaven with them, and so the sick, sad cycle of delusion continues.

Religious education is not education "about" religion/s, it is plain straight out indoctrination from believers, seeking to make their students believers, and that is proselytising, and doing that to little kids in school is totally freakin' sick, and very, very wrong.

The point that Soren makes about learning the historical significance that religion played in our evolution from pagan vilages through to secular societies is a valid point, and one I agree with, but it should be taught from an objective historical perspective, not as an opportunity to proselytise.

So the simple fact is that we can recognise that many parents could hold very extreme and anti-social views, and could seek to indoctrinate their children into accepting and sharing those views, so it only seems fair that in a modern secular society, we could, and should provide a system of education free from any religious indoctrination or prosyletising.

History, ethics, and social responsibility can, and should be, taught, without attaching any bias for supporting individual ideals without objective worth.

Education should primarily concerning itself with providing children the ability to employ individual, critical reasoning, and certainly not just to inculcate the ideas and ideals of their families.

The whole definition of "Freedom" of religion should be looked at in the context of just how free an uneducated, small child could possibly be to actually "choose" a religious faith?
The answer is that of course they cannot freely choose any such thing.

The fact that religions refuse to entertain the idea of allowing children to grow up free from religious indoctrination shows me how little respect that these religions really show for religious freedom, and perversely it is only secularists who truly respect the principle of religious freedom at all.

I guess it's pretty easy for kids to imagine a supernatural being as a parental archetype that controls every facet of their lives... And looks after the bits that mortal parents soon lose control over, like when they learn to deceive... They can't escape god's omniscient observation.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 7:58pm:

I guess it's pretty easy for kids to imagine a supernatural being as a parental archetype that controls every facet of their lives... And looks after the bits that mortal parents soon lose control over, like when they learn to deceive... They can't escape god's omniscient observation.

I have always thought of that sort of imagining of god as a pretty transparent and simplistic projection. I don't think anyone who sticks with religion beyond age 6 stays with that sort of idea.
One of the worst mistakes a lot of people make is thinking religious imagination simplistic.

Soren wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 8:27pm:

I have always thought of that sort of imagining of god as a pretty transparent and simplistic projection. I don't think anyone who sticks with religion beyond age 6 stays with that sort of idea. One of the worst mistakes a lot of people make is thinking religious imagination simplistic.

Sh!t I can think of worse mistakes than that!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 8:35pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 28th, 2010 at 8:27pm: I have always thought of that sort of imagining of god as a pretty transparent and simplistic projection. I don't think anyone who sticks with religion beyond age 6 stays with that sort of idea. One of the worst mistakes a lot of people make is thinking religious imagination simplistic. Sh!t I can think of worse mistakes than that!

... when formulating their ideas about religion.

Soren wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 8:44pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 28th, 2010 at 8:35pm: Soren wrote on Jun 28th, 2010 at 8:27pm: I have always thought of that sort of imagining of god as a pretty transparent and simplistic projection. I don't think anyone who sticks with religion beyond age 6 stays with that sort of idea. One of the worst mistakes a lot of people make is thinking religious imagination simplistic. Sh!t I can think of worse mistakes than that! ... when formulating their ideas about religion.

Orrghhh... OK then.

I would like to recommend to all of you Les Murray's poem, Last Hellos, the final lines of which I have made my signature for the time being.
If you can hear it read by Les himself, that would be best. It is not about religion but was written when his father died. Neither is it not about god, however.  
http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoem.do?poemId=219

Encore!


mozzaok wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 3:41pm:

Well no surprise here, the religious have things all arse backwards as usual. So let us start at the start shall we, and that is just what religions teach to kids. They teach them that god is real, and he created them, and everything else in the universe, and keeps an eternal vigilant eye on them, and everyone, and everything else. He needs us to worship him, and we do that by following the rules he has handed down through obscure ancient middle eastern men thousands of years ago. If we do all that, then we go to heaven when we die, so look upon your life as a test from god, the ultimate entrance exam if you like. Now the penalty for failing the test is not just not getting into heaven, you are actually given eternal detention in a place more horrible, more painful, more distressing than your worst nightmares, and that is called hell, so follow the rules, and do as you are told, or that is where you are going, forever, and ever, and ever. This is a one shot test, you are either in or out. It goes on with a lot of detail about the rules, and so forth, but that is the basic message they push on to kids as soon as they are old enough to sit still long enough, usually 4 or 5 years old. For those poor sick bastards that actually were so brainwashed as kids as to still actually believe that absolute load of tommy rot, on into their adulthood, then they desperately want their kids to learn the rules as early as possible, so they can go to heaven with them, and so the sick, sad cycle of delusion continues. Religious education is not education "about" religion/s, it is plain straight out indoctrination from believers, seeking to make their students believers, and that is proselytising, and doing that to little kids in school is totally freakin' sick, and very, very wrong. The point that Soren makes about learning the historical significance that religion played in our evolution from pagan vilages through to secular societies is a valid point, and one I agree with, but it should be taught from an objective historical perspective, not as an opportunity to proselytise. So the simple fact is that we can recognise that many parents could hold very extreme and anti-social views, and could seek to indoctrinate their children into accepting and sharing those views, so it only seems fair that in a modern secular society, we could, and should provide a system of education free from any religious indoctrination or prosyletising. History, ethics, and social responsibility can, and should be, taught, without attaching any bias for supporting individual ideals without objective worth. Education should primarily concerning itself with providing children the ability to employ individual, critical reasoning, and certainly not just to inculcate the ideas and ideals of their families. The whole definition of "Freedom" of religion should be looked at in the context of just how free an uneducated, small child could possibly be to actually "choose" a religious faith? The answer is that of course they cannot freely choose any such thing. The fact that religions refuse to entertain the idea of allowing children to grow up free from religious indoctrination shows me how little respect that these religions really show for religious freedom, and perversely it is only secularists who truly respect the principle of religious freedom at all.

Aaaaauuuummmmmm......


Good to see you thinking for yourself, yingy-yangy-can't-make-up-my-mind-the-whole-world-is-spinning-for-some-reason person!

ROFPMSL, Soren - though, if you actually watch my pseduo-Pisces avatar for more than a moment, you will see that it is flip-flopping...

::)

BTW, thanks for sharing the Les Murray poem - I have saved it for posterity...   :-*

Equitist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 9:33pm:

BTW, thanks for sharing the Les Murray poem - I have saved it for posterity...   :-*

Go better, commit it to memory.

Don't worry, I'm sure the childless Australia (only place where women are culturally paid to have children) of an ever growing Aged bracket - possibly the highest in the world, will bring an age old wisdom to a few very old and dated Religions.

This is a good one from ACU's VC:


...the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html

Good article, but that particular quote only reflects the vocal atheists. As it points out, most couldn't give a damn about making fun of religions, or even promoting atheism. I like the term 'hobby atheist'


Quote:

...the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever.

It's a bit like the Emperor's new clothes.

If religion promises to leave kids alone, I will promise to leave religion alone, I can't say fairer than that, can I?

The great religious thinkers of the past are all dead, I wonder where they are?

mozzaok wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 10:44am:

If religion promises to leave kids alone, I will promise to leave religion alone, I can't say fairer than that, can I? The great religious thinkers of the past are all dead, I wonder where they are?

If you leave kids alone totally, they don't develop. I don't have much of a problem with the way religions are taught at most schools these days.  They tend to teach them about all religions, even at Catholic Schools. I don't know if they are representative or not.

Here  is a very apt extract from one of the readers' comments on that article:


Quote:

We ought to take heed of these words from the highly respected atheist philosopher Kai Neilson: "I know plenty of neurotic and fanatical Christians, and I know plenty of neurotic and fanatical atheists. One of the reasons I don't like going around to little humanist societies is that it seems to me that many of them are just the reverse side of sectarian Christianity. I've also known many sane and sensible atheists and many sane and sensible Christians. I think it would be very hard to tell which group is the more neurotic."