Recursive Checking / Accident of Birth (Thread spillover)

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody is born into a religion. You may have parents of a particular religion, but nobody is ever born into a religion. It's an absurd notion to expect that children will understand religion, from the get go.

I'd argue that children who are born, baptised before they can speak or understand the world around them, do their communion when they are still young and innocent and are confirmed before they really start to learn about science etc is pretty much being born into it. Where I grew up there was no objectivity or choice - you did your communion and confirmation as part of the school curriculum. You learnt off prayers and sang for the visiting priests. I understand if things weren't the same for you or if they're changing, but what has been done as the norm in Ireland for the past number of years was nothing but indoctrination and as "born into religion" as is possible.

Jakkass wrote:

I'm arguing against the notion by the previous poster that religions realign themselves to their particular time. However I don't think this is entirely true of Christianity as it suits today is what was taught 2,000 years ago. I don't think antiquity makes anything more or less true, nor did I say that just to clarify before my views get taken out of context.

Of course religions realign themselves. If they didn't, they would die out because they sometimes oppose modern thinking about things like creationism, human rights etc. Picking an example off the top of my head would be Timothy 2:12, where it says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent". Were this the view of the church nowadays (and to be honest, it probably still is, but it's not actively taught) and priests condemnned the outspokenness of today's women, the followers of Christianity would probably wane in their convictions.

Christianity needs followers, so it'll keep up with the trends, since if it loses it's followers it loses it's only source of power and influence

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

I'd argue that children who are born, baptised before they can speak or understand the world around them, do their communion when they are still young and innocent and are confirmed before they really start to learn about science etc is pretty much being born into it. Where I grew up there was no objectivity or choice - you did your communion and confirmation as part of the school curriculum. You learnt off prayers and sang for the visiting priests. I understand if things weren't the same for you or if they're changing, but what has been done as the norm in Ireland for the past number of years was nothing but indoctrination and as "born into religion" as is possible.

I disagree with the notion of indoctrination for a start. Parents have every right to teach their children Biblical values, that is their legal freedom and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

As for not learning about science at an early age, blame the Irish education system for that.

Of course you had a choice, look at what you decided for yourself now.

As for things not being the same for me, no they weren't as I wasn't educated in a Catholic school but at COI ones for both primary and secondary.

"Born into religion" isn't really the case, because one would have to be born believing, and to be honest with you kids are rather agnostic from birth until the time they can decide for themselves, atheism, or the various forms of theism.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Of course religions realign themselves. If they didn't, they would die out because they sometimes oppose modern thinking about things like creationism, human rights etc. Picking an example off the top of my head would be Timothy 2:12, where it says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent". Were this the view of the church nowadays (and to be honest, it probably still is, but it's not actively taught) and priests condemnned the outspokenness of today's women, the followers of Christianity would probably wane in their convictions.

Even from the age of Augustine and Origen of Jerusalem there was discussion about the Genesis 1 account, it isn't really a change due to modern times, actually not a change at all really. Some people held that the creation took place literally over 7 days, and some suggested it could have been a longer period, this essentially occurring at the time of the Church Fathers and more probably even beforehand.

As for the women being silent in the church argument, PDN gave a good explanation of this a few months ago.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Christianity needs followers, so it'll keep up with the trends, since if it loses it's followers it loses it's only source of power and influence

See, it's this conformist view which is the opposite of what I think that Christianity is going for. If this were the case all of our doctrine on "unpopular" issues would have already been conformed.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with the notion of indoctrination for a start. Parents have every right to teach their children Biblical values, that is their legal freedom and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

Right, people who get married under the umbrella of the catholic church are told they have a duty to bring their children up to serve God. That sounds very much like indoctrination.

Parents teaching their children biblical values is up to them. Schools teaching the bible and christianity is not.

Jakkass wrote:

Of course you had a choice, look at what you decided for yourself now.

I didn't have a choice back then. Christianity was an "opt out" clause rather than an "opt in". Had I been given proper perspective when I was young instead of the dogma that was hammered into us, I would have saved an awful lot of my precious time not attending mass every week.

Jakkass wrote:

"Born into religion" isn't really the case, because one would have to be born believing, and to be honest with you kids are rather agnostic from birth until the time they can decide for themselves, atheism, or the various forms of theism.

Literally speaking, you are not born into religion. Since christians are so into believing the spirit of the law and not the letter, I think it's fair to assume that many children in Ireland are born into religion against their will, having it forced down their throats at an early age and only really having the chance to consider what they think later in life

Jakkass wrote:

As for the women being silent in the church argument, PDN gave a good explanation of this a few months ago.

To be honest I think that's rather a weak explanation of the quote from Timothy. It implies that christians in the past believed that instead of rectifying inequality they should just maintain the status quo. It's twisting the intent of the author to make it appear that its message of male superiority was justified.

Why not revise the quotes about homosexuals being detestable? Surely god meant that it was detestable since men who engaged in it were more predisposed to urinary tract infections, which were dangerous in olden times. Nowadays with condoms and antibiotics, they are not a danger as they once were. Hence should we also revise our views on these?

These words can be twisted and read into to find your own meaning ad infinitum. But that's another argument.

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

Right, people who get married under the umbrella of the catholic church are told they have a duty to bring their children up to serve God. That sounds very much like indoctrination.

Objection: The Catholic Church insisting on those who get married having a duty to bring up their children to serve the Lord, as is the expectation of Christians in general.

Answer: Don't get married in a Christian church.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Parents teaching their children biblical values is up to them. Schools teaching the bible and christianity is not.

My views on education in Ireland in relation to religious ethos.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I didn't have a choice back then. Christianity was an "opt out" clause rather than an "opt in". Had I been given proper perspective when I was young instead of the dogma that was hammered into us, I would have saved an awful lot of my precious time not attending mass every week.

Of course you did. Just because you are raised in a Catholic background doesn't necessarily mean that one has to believe in it.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Literally speaking, you are not born into religion. Since christians are so into believing the spirit of the law and not the letter, I think it's fair to assume that many children in Ireland are born into religion against their will, having it forced down their throats at an early age and only really having the chance to consider what they think later in life

Nobody is born into religion.

I think it's fair to assume, that the parents have the discretion to teach their children Biblical morality, and that the children have the discretion to reject it of their own conscience and of their own free will at a later age. I personally have come to prefer adult baptism to infant baptism although I was baptized as an infant myself, to allow the people to decide for themselves. However raising children with Biblical / Qu'ranic / Torah / secular ethics is okay by me.

MatthewVII wrote: »

To be honest I think that's rather a weak explanation of the quote from Timothy. It implies that christians in the past believed that instead of rectifying inequality they should just maintain the status quo. It's twisting the intent of the author to make it appear that its message of male superiority was justified.

Luckily I have a male pastor even in the eventuality that this interpretation could be seen as incorrect. However one would have questions to ask about Priscilla and Aquilla teaching the Gospel, and the many women that Paul refers to as having fought alongside him in teaching the Gospel in the Epistle to the Phillippians.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Why not revise the quotes about homosexuals being detestable? Surely god meant that it was detestable since men who engaged in it were more predisposed to urinary tract infections, which were dangerous in olden times. Nowadays with condoms and antibiotics, they are not a danger as they once were. Hence should we also revise our views on these?

Simply because the Biblical text is meant to be upheld not ignored, and we are meant to seek to understand it more fully. However many gay churches have indeed tried to "revise" these things. However we are meant to be the custodians of the Gospel, these teachings are God's not ours to change.

Húrin

sink wrote: »

It's like deciding which is you favourite cheese, you can't know for certain if you haven't tried them all, but if you don't like cheese you don't need to try them all to know you won't like any of them.

Atheist naturalism is still a worldview, or "a cheese", just like any of the others. Indeed, even if you do not accept this, most of his arguments could also be asked of atheists. Surely if you accept that geography can determine if someone is a Muslim, then you accept that geography can determine that someone will be an atheist.

sink wrote: »

What I don't like about religion is the same irrespective of the religion, the lack of a firm grounding in empirical evidence. If that's what bothers me about religion I don't need to examine each specific theological doctrine individually because they all contain the same flaw.

That's like me saying that I don't need to look at any of the others in order to talk about them (I don't think that "liking" religions has much to do with this discussion) simply because they lack a firm grounding in Jesus Christ.

SDooM wrote: »

?

Then why does one ultimately demand you rely on faith when one does not?

Atheism seems to rely on the faith that science can (and possibly will) answer all questions that humans will ever have. It is a faith that nothing other than physical matter and energy exists.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm sure there are. But, that's irrelevant to the point of this thread. If you were born into a different culture, you would more than likely adopt the religious belief of that culture.

Indeed, I completely accept that religious ideologies are often geographically determined. However, you are so wrong to universalise this observation to all religious believers everywhere.

That point has no relevance. You (maybe not you, but people in general) adopted Christianity because it is Irelands inherent religion.

It used to be. Ireland's current religion is atheist capitalism, and I was an adherent up until age 21.

Probably not. I honestly don't know. If I had the same personality that I have now, then, I think I would be. Because I'd still ask the same questions that I've asked here. But, with all honesty, I don't know.

It would also depend on how much reverence science is held in in the Iraqi public consciousness. Remember, modern science is a distinctly western development.

I would also say the same thing about personality, though I have yet to make up my mind on how much are personalities are determined by our environment as opposed to innate qualities.

Telelogical questions might not deserve answers, because, quite simply, there may not be answers to them. The universe and all that's in it doesn't owe us an answer to our telelogical questions.

Declaring particular questions illegitimate is not good enough. It's one of the reasons why atheism looks so illiberal.

I have. And I don't know whether I would be religious if I was born into another culture. It's an impossible question to answer. I don't think I would be, but, that's just speculation.

It's rather unfair to imply that Jakkass would almost definitely be a Muslim if born in the middle east, but to declare yourself to be more questioning than he, by not conceding the same likelihood.

But that isn't very fair, if it's true.

I don't think that all of the people who have lived in "Christian" countries have gone to heaven. According to Jesus, only those who put their full faith in him find the door to life. Going to church every sunday is not the same thing. Cultural Christianity is not good enough for Christ.

What about people born into indigenous African tribes? People who never hear the Word of Christ?

Now that's another discussion. Probably has been discussed already on Christianity forum.

Probably because it's one of the most liberal locations on earth. Because there is a high standard of education, and freedom from religious persecution. But, again, being an atheist in Europe may be an accident of birth. The concept applies to atheists as much as it does to the religious.

I'm well aware of why atheism is so prevalent on our continent, and I was not asking why. I was simply adding to your list of religious regions.

I've never said that it doesn't apply to me.

If you were serious about that then you would have asked yourself something along these lines:

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But have you honestly considered all other worldviews? How do you know that one of them isn't the right one for you?

The point of the argument is that, generally, people accept the predominant worldview of the culture that they were born/live in.

If you were born in Iraq, do you still think you'd be an atheist?

And then written your response to Jakkass with your answers in mind.

But, the religions usually instill the best possible experience and attitude that's available at that time period. At least the relatively sane religions do, and have done, anyway.

What do you mean by this?

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's because of "liberalism", but more about free speech, a value which conservatives would also uphold. We have a right to hold whatever values we want, and we have freedom of conscience. Infact I'd say the amount of people in Europe and the Western world who change their faith freely is much much higher than in other parts of the world, or at least that is what I would expect.

Well remember in a world context what we are describing as liberalism and conservatism are just two strands of European liberal rationalism.

I doubt that most people think enough about it to change their faith. Though the freedom to do so in Europe, and the easy availability of information about all religions certainly helps.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The bible may very well contain a piece of good advice that we should adhere to, it doesn't however change the fact that it also contains acts by your Gods people that are morally depraved by todays standards and acts by your God himself that would make you vomit out of repulsion where you to of been there to witness them.

If you think that moral standards change over time then why do you have a problem with the brutality of ancient Israelites?

sink

Húrin wrote: »

Atheist naturalism is still a worldview, or "a cheese", just like any of the others. Indeed, even if you do not accept this, most of his arguments could also be asked of atheists. Surely if you accept that geography can determine if someone is a Muslim, then you accept that geography can determine that someone will be an atheist.

I accept that if I did not have an education in science or access to science media, I might not hold the same views I do now. However if I had a similar education and access to the required material than I would say there is a fair chance I would still be an atheist regardless of origin of birth. I was after all indoctrinated into the Anglican faith and attended chapel 6/7 day's a week for six years. If I rejected Anglicanism I see no reason why I would not reject any other religious faith.

Húrin wrote: »

That's like me saying that I don't need to look at any of the others in order to talk about them (I don't think that "liking" religions has much to do with this discussion) simply because they lack a firm grounding in Jesus Christ.

I have very little interest in religious doctrine's, I have more interest in the way they originate from the mind like a work of fiction and then are crudely used to interpret the natural world. Almost all religions have a figurehead, Jesus Christ is nothing special if you have faith in Mohammed, Moses or Visnu.

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism seems to rely on the faith that science can (and possibly will) answer all questions that humans will ever have. It is a faith that nothing other than physical matter and energy exists.

No, my atheism relies on the knowledge that questions science can't answer can never truly be answered. The best we can do is guess. If it's unobservable then in all practicality it does not exist for it is unknowable and does not have any impact upon the reality we can perceive and interact with.

lostexpectation

*shakes head*

philologos

sink wrote: »

I accept that if I did not have an education in science or access to science media, I might not hold the same views I do now. However if I had a similar education and access to the required material than I would say there is a fair chance I would still be an atheist regardless of origin of birth. I was after all indoctrinated into the Anglican faith and attended chapel 6/7 day's a week for six years. If I rejected Anglicanism I see no reason why I would not reject any other religious faith.

Hang on though. Are science and religion really at odds? Many religious scientists manage to maintain their faith even in the progress of scientific discoveries. An example of this would be Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project and has a rather good book that I have yet to finish (more than half way through) called the Language of God.

As for being an atheist in Iraq, it is rather difficult for a former Muslim in Iraq to change their religion let alone reject any belief. The penalty in the more conservative part of the Islamic world is death but there is a new enough trend in Islamic thought challenging the notion that apostasy warrants death in Sharia such as the discussion in the Islam forum became. That's why I think that Masab Youcef is extremely brave leaving his whole life behind him for Christ, and eventually to get asylum in the USA despite being a former member of Hamas.

As for the 6 / 7 days a week in chapel, I went to a similar school. I don't think it was indoctrination. I could imagine much much more forceful. However, if one goes to a school with an Anglican ethos, one should expect readings from the Bible and so on. Generally only lasted 20 minutes in the morning when I was in school anyway, and I only started to appreciate it towards my final two years of school when I was really considering Christianity as an option for me.

sink wrote: »

I have very little interest in religious doctrine's, I have more interest in the way they originate from the mind like a work of fiction and then are crudely used to interpret the natural world. Almost all religions have a figurehead, Jesus Christ is nothing special if you have faith in Mohammed, Moses or Visnu.

Muslims believe in Jesus but he's portrayed rather differently than in the Gospels. I believe in Moses, but Moses was a mediator to God but Christ was the Son of God. As for Vishnu, I must admit I don't know much about Dharmic religions.

sink wrote: »

No, my atheism relies on the knowledge that questions science can't answer can never truly be answered. The best we can do is guess. If it's unobservable then in all practicality it does not exist for it is unknowable and does not have any impact upon the reality we can perceive and interact with.

Hang on though, to be a bit pedantic with this. What of cosmology? Humans can and never will be able to observe the creation of the world, however our knowledge of physics when invoked into understanding how the beginning might have been gives us a rather good reasoning to how the world may have come into being surely. Yet we have this knowledge, despite not being observers of the event.

I don't consider God unobservable because I believe He is a personal God, and would attest to spiritual experiences, as would many other Christians that I've talked with.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

Objection: The Catholic Church insisting on those who get married having a duty to bring up their children to serve the Lord, as is the expectation of Christians in general.

Answer: Don't get married in a Christian church.

If your parents are catholic, they will get married in a catholic church and have a duty to make you a catholic. This is pretty much being born into catholicism, as they will send you to a catholic school where you will be sculpted according to catholicism. This is taking the choice of the child out of the equation, and punishing it for the sins of the father.

Jakkass wrote:

Of course you did. Just because you are raised in a Catholic background doesn't necessarily mean that one has to believe in it.

Nobody is born into religion.

Of course they are. Children inherently lack the ability to undergo complex mental functions like reality testing and questioning higher existence. They are also mentally primed to accept the lessons of their elders as concrete fact. You say that everyone has a choice, which is technically correct, but children don't start forming their own mental schemae of the world around them until age 14-16 when they start to develop independent thought based on reason. Until then they are sponges soaking up what is touted as truth. To tell them that the teachings of the bible etc are truth as is done today is indoctrination

Jakkass wrote:

Simply because the Biblical text is meant to be upheld not ignored, and we are meant to seek to understand it more fully. However many gay churches have indeed tried to "revise" these things. However we are meant to be the custodians of the Gospel, these teachings are God's not ours to change.

Now we're going around in circles. It's okay to change the meaning of the Book of Timothy but not Leviticus?

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on though. Are science and religion really at odds?

I would say most definitely. Science teaches us to base our thoughts on what is real, what can be observed, what can be tested. Things that are hypothesized are only accepted if there is evidence for their verity

Religion teaches us that we can only rely on what cannot be observed or tested. Its very foundation in faith is completely opposed to science's foundation in fact.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on though. Are science and religion really at odds?

Ultimately it depends on how prepared someone is to re-evaluate what their religion has told them is true when science convincingly demonstrates it isn't.

An example being discussed on the Christian forum is the Biblical Flood. There wasn't a world wide flood that wiped out all life (at least not one that wasn't cleared up by a deity to look like there wasn't), nor are all humans descended from a handful of individuals who survived this Flood.

Now some people have great trouble with that, because their religion tells them there was a flood, and lets be honest their religion offers them more if it turns out to be true than if it turns out not to be true. So a lot of people reject any notion that their wasn't a Flood (in the same way they reject ideas such as evolution).

Other people don't find this troublesome at all, their religion tells them their was a flood but they do not feel it is necessary to accept this as a historical fact to accept their religion. So they are content with the idea that the flood didn't actually happen.

Now personally I think both these types of people are being a bit silly. There is overwhelming evidence from nearly all areas of science that the Biblical Flood did not take place. Those who hold out that it did in the face of this are just being silly.

Equally one has to wonder about people are just drop aspects of what they are told by their religion when it is contradicted by overwhelming torrent of science. One has to question what they are really doing, it seems they are just taking the nice bits of the religion and discarding the rest. And perhaps they should look at why they believe what they believe.

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

If your parents are catholic, they will get married in a catholic church and have a duty to make you a catholic. This is pretty much being born into catholicism, as they will send you to a catholic school where you will be sculpted according to catholicism. This is taking the choice of the child out of the equation, and punishing it for the sins of the father.

Punishing? Religion isn't a means of punishing it's a means of liberating from negative influences in ones life. As for your parents being Catholic that is irrelevant, one can only teach ones child Christianity as a means of them acceptin it later on in life. A key part of being a mature Christian from bringing the child like faith that people may have into an adult one is to find out what is true for ones self and to claim the Biblical teachings for their own. I don't think that many who have become atheists, ever reached the stage of being in adult or mature faith.

As I say, and I think this is the case for many people who are raised in Christian backgrounds, it is only when one discovers the Bible for themselves that they can truly say it is their own. This is where the choice comes in, do you want to discover Christianity for yourself or do you want to leave it behind.

This talk of indoctrination as a tenet of Christianity is pure nonsense, Jesus warned the people in the Gospels that there would be trials and persecutions in living out the lives that they did, and that one must be fully committed to the Christian cause to follow Him.

Parents may have a duty to raise you in Christianity, but ultimately the choice is yours to uphold or deny Christ's message, and you used it to fall away from the faith.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Of course they are. Children inherently lack the ability to undergo complex mental functions like reality testing and questioning higher existence. They are also mentally primed to accept the lessons of their elders as concrete fact. You say that everyone has a choice, which is technically correct, but children don't start forming their own mental schemae of the world around them until age 14-16 when they start to develop independent thought based on reason. Until then they are sponges soaking up what is touted as truth. To tell them that the teachings of the bible etc are truth as is done today is indoctrination

Of course, that's why a parent can only lead one subtly to faith, for the more mature person to think about reading the Bible and figuring out it's meaning for them in the modern world.

It's not only technically correct, but correct in actuality. One can only guide people in the Way of Christ, but if they want to fall out of faith that is their decision and their decision alone. This is why clearly I disagree with the notion of indoctrination and I think it's hypocritical given that many atheists / agnostics also say that they wouldn't be happy with their child choosing a religion. I would be open to a hypothetical child I would have leaving Christianity, I wouldn't be 100% pleased with it, but I would still be just as much their dad I was before.

See the nonsense of blindly accepting something as a child and not even questioning it for themselves doesn't ever actually happen in society. People review the beliefs of their elders, and check their accuracy.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Now we're going around in circles. It's okay to change the meaning of the Book of Timothy but not Leviticus?

This is ridiculous. I never once suggested changing the meaning of Timothy, never once. I do suppose that people will attempt to take my views out of context for the benefit of argument though. I am all for trying to fully understand the passage as it was in the mind of Paul the Apostle, given the fact that many women ministered alongside him in the Gospel.

As for Leviticus, it's not quite that, it's also reaffirmed in the New Testament in Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 respectively.

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

I would say most definitely. Science teaches us to base our thoughts on what is real, what can be observed, what can be tested. Things that are hypothesized are only accepted if there is evidence for their verity

And what scale of evaluating do you have to say that religious experiences aren't real and cannot be observed. I can find a great mass of people who have experienced similar things to me in their walk in Christianity, and a great mass of people who experience the same sort of difficulties in their faith despite being quite different in personality and in other respects. This is far from a coincidence.

As for faith not being observable, I would also contend with that notion, anyone can experience it right now by accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour. I think it's that atheists don't want it to be observable that's the key difficulty here. God will only show Himself to those who seek, and your objections only strengthen that, it is only because you refuse to seek that you cannot find.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

And what scale of evaluating do you have to say that religious experiences aren't real and cannot be observed. I can find a great mass of people who have experienced similar things to me in their walk in Christianity, and a great mass of people who experience the same sort of difficulties in their faith despite being quite different in personality and in other respects. This is far from a coincidence.

As for faith not being observable, I would also contend with that notion, anyone can experience it right now by accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour. I think it's that atheists don't want it to be observable that's the key difficulty here. God will only show Himself to those who seek, and your objections only strengthen that, it is only because you refuse to seek that you cannot find.

I say that religious experiences are subjective, not objective. I can find a great number of people who claim to have felt God in their lives, and that's just it, they felt god, they didn't see it, hear it, touch it, taste it or smell it. What they feel is completely subjective and undemonstrable.

Atheists don't want faith to be observable? Atheists are atheists because it isn't observable. We didn't all start off as atheists and retrospectively try to suppress "evidence" of christianity, many of us started off as like others who realised that faith isn't observable, hence moving to atheism

God only shows himself to those who seek, because unless you have fully convinced yourself that he is real can you start to subconsciously attribute anything good in your life to him, making it seem as if he is having an effect on your life.

philologos

Yes, however, just because you haven't had a religious experience of any form doesn't mean that you can dismiss them as just nothing however. As for feeling God, many do feel that God does speak to us through the Scriptures or by laying out certain events in their lives. So Christians such as myself would argue that it is perfectly observable, if you are just willing to be open enough to accept God and allow Him to motivate your life and show you His path for you. It's not as simple as saying that it isn't observable. It isn't observable for you because you do not wish it to be observable any more than it not being.

Yes, atheists don't in most cases. Atheism is in more cases than not based rather on lifestyle conflicts with religious life rather than so called intellectual disputes. Much intellectual disputes are veiled with a deeper and a more personal objection. See this realisation, isn't a realisation at all. Just because one has never had a religious experience doesn't mean that God isn't observable.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

Punishing? Religion isn't a means of punishing it's a means of liberating from negative influences in ones life.

That depends on your view of religion. I absolutely view having to serve as an altar boy and learn prayers as punishment, undeserved and inflicted unfairly

Jakkass wrote:

As for your parents being Catholic that is irrelevant, one can only teach ones child Christianity as a means of them acceptin it later on in life. A key part of being a mature Christian from bringing the child like faith that people may have into an adult one is to find out what is true for ones self and to claim the Biblical teachings for their own. I don't think that many who have become atheists, ever reached the stage of being in adult or mature faith.

Then why is catholicism drummed into children from a young age? Why not begin teaching them about it when they reach the age of 18 or so?

As for atheists never reaching the stage of mature faith, I say that atheists became mature adults, and realised that religion is an immature concept and discarded it.

Jakkass wrote:

Parents may have a duty to raise you in Christianity, but ultimately the choice is yours to uphold or deny Christ's message, and you used it to fall away from the faith.

Again, we come back to indoctrination. If parents really wanted their children to make a choice, theyd back off. As for falling away from faith, I think of it as more like giving up sucking my thumb or having imaginary friends

Jakkass wrote:

See the nonsense of blindly accepting something as a child and not even questioning it for themselves doesn't ever actually happen in society. People review the beliefs of their elders, and check their accuracy.

Yes, I can think of several primary school children who regularly read the God Delusion, or read modern critiques of organised religion. Similarly, I've never met a 12-year old who relished leafing through the Quran or the Torah, the Popol Vuh or the I Ching. Children just don't have the capacity to truly understand these things. They accept what they are told, and they are told the bible.

Jakkass wrote:

This is ridiculous. I never once suggested changing the meaning of Timothy, never once. I do suppose that people will attempt to take my views out of context for the benefit of argument though. I am all for trying to fully understand the passage as it was in the mind of Paul the Apostle, given the fact that many women ministered alongside him in the Gospel.

You suggested that PDN's interpretation was a good one. The meaning PDN found was not synchronous with it's actual meaning, that women should not be heeded.

Jakkass wrote:

As for Leviticus, it's not quite that, it's also reaffirmed in the New Testament in Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 respectively.

I realise this. My point is that the same argument can be applied to all instances of homosexual repulsivity

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

See this realisation, isn't a realisation at all. Just because one has never had a religious experience doesn't mean that God isn't observable.

You're right, there are much better reasons that "God" isn't observable. For example, the complete lack of evidence of his existence. There have been no objective phenomena (for example, miraculous healing - don't let PDN's laying of hands over in the christianity board fool you). There have been no undeniable sightings, no unfakable artefacts of his existence.

EVERYTHING that religion hinges on is the subjective. A good example I heard between a debate between a religious friend and an atheist friend went thus-

Religious: Of course god is real. He gives me a deep sense of peace and relief when I pray to him

Atheist: I get a deep sense of peace and relief when I go to the bathroom. It doesn't mean there's a deity in my digestive tract.

Religious people try to find meaning in the banal. Because they have been led to believe that god is the be all and end all, it eventually always leads back to him.

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

That depends on your view of religion. I absolutely view having to serve as an altar boy and learn prayers as punishment, undeserved and inflicted unfairly

Depends on your view of religion. Personally I don't see the point of altar boys in the first place. However, I think if they wish to carry out said role in a Catholic Church there is little or no issue in doing so.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Then why is catholicism drummed into children from a young age? Why not begin teaching them about it when they reach the age of 18 or so?

Again, I can't relate to Catholicism. However I think parents have the right to teach their children Biblical ethics and morals concerning how they should conduct their lives from an early age. I think introducing them to Bible stories also has no harm and could teach them inner morals on how to relate to other people in society such as Jesus and Zacheus, and the parables, David and Goliath. However, as an adult people should be encouraged to find how Christianity relates to themselves and how Jesus could impact their personal lives. This might be a result of my view of the Reformation and so on people having the Scriptures to discern for themselves rather than bein unquestioning about faith. I find this very important. People must have a personal understanding of Jesus Christ.

MatthewVII wrote: »

As for atheists never reaching the stage of mature faith, I say that atheists became mature adults, and realised that religion is an immature concept and discarded it.

Are you seriously implying that theists aren't mature adults? Actually, I would argue that many rejections of theism that take place during teenage years, and during early adulthood are based on more immature notions such as breaking out of ethical structure and wanting to be a bit more rebellious and so on.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Again, we come back to indoctrination. If parents really wanted their children to make a choice, theyd back off. As for falling away from faith, I think of it as more like giving up sucking my thumb or having imaginary friends

Of course we don't come back to indoctrination. Any loving Christian parent would want their child to come to know Jesus, however every being has a choice whether or not to stay in Christian tradition or not. Faithful people are going to teach people faithful values, secular people are going to teach people secular values. People are going to be predisposed to a certain culture from birth, and bringing up people in secular households predisposes them just as much as in a theist household. This argument is certainly by no means moderate. Many atheists in another thread said they benefited from the morals of their previous religion in this very forum. So I'd argue even if they lost their faith it had some benefit for them.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Yes, I can think of several primary school children who regularly read the God Delusion, or read modern critiques of organised religion. Similarly, I've never met a 12-year old who relished leafing through the Quran or the Torah, the Popol Vuh or the I Ching. Children just don't have the capacity to truly understand these things. They accept what they are told, and they are told the bible.

After reading the God Delusion myself, I don't think I'd possibly recommend it to anyone given the distortions of theology particularly concerning the virgin birth that are contained in it.

However as for the views concerning holy books. That's why I suggest that people should read the Bible for themselves and decide, and that's why I find that an important part of my theology. It is important to allow for the growth of committed Christians who feel that God has an active role in their lives and know what God teaches for themselves instead of having to trust a pastor. That's why I think that the believers who checked what Paul had said with the Scriptures are the true inspiration of how we should be teaching Christianity in this country. The church and the priests should be accountable to the Bible as the word of God.

MatthewVII wrote: »

You suggested that PDN's interpretation was a good one. The meaning PDN found was not synchronous with it's actual meaning, that women should not be heeded.

I suggested that it was quite possible accurate, given that women played quite a role in other Scriptures of the Biblical text right from Eve to the women that Paul worked with in the ministry. Priscilla and Aquilla suggest that men and women did minister together in preaching the Gospel. PDN's notion that women in the church may have been loud and considering the church may well have been divided between men and women it seems reasonable that this could well have been the true meaning of the passage. However, Priscilla and Aquilla have already shown that women and men were permitted to teach together in Christian proceedings, so the question is can women preach without men rather than can women preach at all.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I realise this. My point is that the same argument can be applied to all instances of homosexual repulsivity

No it cannot, the moral laws of Torah, and the moral laws of the New Testament both confirm either stance. There is no Biblical reason to look more into this passage, whereas given what is recorded concerning women in ministry in the Bible there certainly is.

Edit: This thread is going increasingly off topic, perhaps Biblical objections should be dealt with in the Christianity forum?

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

You're right, there are much better reasons that "God" isn't observable. For example, the complete lack of evidence of his existence. There have been no objective phenomena (for example, miraculous healing - don't let PDN's laying of hands over in the christianity board fool you). There have been no undeniable sightings, no unfakable artefacts of his existence.

What reasons?

As for PDN, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss his experiences without his own defence of the situation. I will let him defend himself. I don't think I can comment on PDN's event as I wasn't there and I wasn't present to attest to it or to reject it, and quite frankly neither were you.

MatthewVII wrote: »

EVERYTHING that religion hinges on is the subjective. A good example I heard between a debate between a religious friend and an atheist friend went thus-

This still doesn't justify your position that religious experiences aren't valid in attesting to observing God's existence.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Religious people try to find meaning in the banal. Because they have been led to believe that god is the be all and end all, it eventually always leads back to him.

And of course everything to you is the banal?

Indeed God is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega in Christian belief, but I really don't think that everything that theists affirm to is "banal". Extraordinary things have happened to people because of religion, such as people on death row reforming to be eventually released due to good behaviour. It's not all as commonplace as one thinks.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on though. Are science and religion really at odds? Many religious scientists manage to maintain their faith even in the progress of scientific discoveries. An example of this would be Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome Project and has a rather good book that I have yet to finish (more than half way through) called the Language of God.

Science does not eliminate the possibility of God but it allows one to conceive reality without it. If I did not have an education in science and the scientific method, I would more than likely not be a stringent naturalist and might allow for supernatural possibilities such as God.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for being an atheist in Iraq, it is rather difficult for a former Muslim in Iraq to change their religion let alone reject any belief. The penalty in the more conservative part of the Islamic world is death but there is a new enough trend in Islamic thought challenging the notion that apostasy warrants death in Sharia such as the discussion in the Islam forum became. That's why I think that Masab Youcef is extremely brave leaving his whole life behind him for Christ, and eventually to get asylum in the USA despite being a former member of Hamas.

I might not have been able to be open about my atheism but that would not stop me from thinking it.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the 6 / 7 days a week in chapel, I went to a similar school. I don't think it was indoctrination. I could imagine much much more forceful. However, if one goes to a school with an Anglican ethos, one should expect readings from the Bible and so on. Generally only lasted 20 minutes in the morning when I was in school anyway, and I only started to appreciate it towards my final two years of school when I was really considering Christianity as an option for me.

It was far from forceful but as there was no alternative I had no choice, it was either believe or be lost in my own thoughts. I was very unsure of my own thoughts for years because of it, for I could not believe what I was been told by authority figures I respected, but I did not have the confidence to believe my own thoughts on the subject.

Jakkass wrote: »

Muslims believe in Jesus but he's portrayed rather differently than in the Gospels. I believe in Moses, but Moses was a mediator to God but Christ was the Son of God. As for Vishnu, I must admit I don't know much about Dharmic religions.

But my point was, the Christian Jesus is as appealing to a devout Muslim as Mohammed is to you. From an outside observer there is very little difference in the roles they play within their religions and to their followers.

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on though, to be a bit pedantic with this. What of cosmology? Humans can and never will be able to observe the creation of the world, however our knowledge of physics when invoked into understanding how the beginning might have been gives us a rather good reasoning to how the world may have come into being surely. Yet we have this knowledge, despite not being observers of the event.

By empirical observation I do not mean directly looking at something. Empirical observation can include looking at the after effects and interactions of objects and events we cannot observe directly. In the case of the big bang we have the background radiation left behind coupled with the blue shift in the light of most galaxies, amongst many other indicators.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider God unobservable because I believe He is a personal God, and would attest to spiritual experiences, as would many other Christians that I've talked with.

God is unobservable in the empirical sense, what goes on in your own mind does not count. Empirical evidence has to exist in the natural world, and if god as you believe interacts with the natural world we should be able to see the empirical evidence, but so far every attempt has failed miserably.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you seriously implying that theists aren't mature adults? Actually, I would argue that many rejections of theism that take place during teenage years, and during early adulthood are based on more immature notions such as breaking out of ethical structure and wanting to be a bit more rebellious and so on.

No more then you imply that atheism is a failure to understand faith as a mature adult. I believe that "teenage atheism" isn't out of a desire to be rebellious, it's out of a desire to find one's own path that is morally and ethically acceptable to onesself. Formation of one's identity is a crucial part of growing up, and this is hard to do if one is to accept strict guidance from an uncreditable source.

Jakkass wrote:

After reading the God Delusion myself, I don't think I'd possibly recommend it to anyone given the distortions of theology particularly concerning the virgin birth that are contained in it.

It's not perfect but it would at least give them some perspective

Jakkass wrote:

I suggested that it was quite possible accurate, given that women played quite a role in other Scriptures of the Biblical text right from Eve to the women that Paul worked with in the ministry. Priscilla and Aquilla suggest that men and women did minister together in preaching the Gospel. PDN's notion that women in the church may have been loud and considering the prchurch may well have been divided between men and women it seems reasonable that this could well have been the true meaning of the passage. However, Priscilla and Aquilla have already shown that women and men were permitted to teach together in Christian proceedings, so the question is can women preach without men rather than can women preach at all.

To be blunt, it just seems like contradiction on the part of the bible.

Jakkass wrote:

No it cannot, the moral laws of Torah, and the moral laws of the New Testament both confirm either stance. There is no Biblical reason to look more into this passage, whereas given what is recorded concerning women in ministry in the Bible there certainly is.

One wonders if there would have been any reason to look into the role of women had the Women's Rights movement not gained so much momentum. Perhaps when the gay people get equal rights the bible will be similarly revised.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

What reasons?

As for PDN, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss his experiences without his own defence of the situation. I will let him defend himself. I don't think I can comment on PDN's event as I wasn't there and I wasn't present to attest to it or to reject it, and quite frankly neither were you.

Since I'm not allowed discuss on that particular thread, I will have to draw my own conclusions. And my own conclusions are derived from medical fact. PDN contracted a self-limiting illness. I refuse to accept that he was "healed" by god. I would like to hear PDN's story in entirety however.

Jakkass wrote:

This still doesn't justify your position that religious experiences aren't valid in attesting to observing God's existence.

Yes it does. Something which is not objective, observable and repeatable cannot be used as evidence of existence, merely as personal anecdotal evidence which is ultimately valueless.

Jakkass wrote:

Extraordinary things have happened to people because of religion, such as people on death row reforming to be eventually released due to good behaviour. It's not all as commonplace as one thinks.

Just because extraordinary things happen doesn't mean there is a god behind them. Terrible things also happen because of religion, does it mean god is behind them perpetrating them also?

midlandsmissus

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I find the idea kind of pointless, as religious people are extremely unlikely to convert to another faith, even another denomination of their own, regardless of how well it "fits".
quote]


Not true at all I know people who have converted. As a specific example i know two catholics who now go to protestant church...a different denomination of their own religion if you will.

From your post it really seems like you think: if somebody is religious they don't ever really think about anything or look at other people's points of view? Well I do all the time.

Húrin

midlandsmissus wrote: »

From your post it really seems like you think: if somebody is religious they don't ever really think about anything or look at other people's points of view? Well I do all the time.

The sad fact is that most atheists do indeed think that the main reason we love Jesus is because we haven't thought about things enought to "see the light".