Religion is "child abuse" ??

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's no unbiased support for the claims of any eyewitness - there's simply the testimony of someone who claims they were an eyewitness. They give their "evidence" and you, the jury, evaluate it. You can dismiss their evidence if you like. But it is evidence.

Some may indeed regard it as "evidence", but given the enormity of the claims at stake, it's pretty shoddy and haphazard.

I'd imagine a Creator of all of Time and Space, had he wanted us to know he was there, would have been a bit less, well, human in his attempts to communicate.

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Shenshen wrote: »

I never would have thought people would misunderstand the meaning in such a way.

A lot of people do make this error and it's sufficiently common, consistent and explicable that I think there's a credible case to be made that it should be elevated from just a common-or-garden thinko up to whatever is the lowest level of classifiable cognitive disorders.

Basically, it's the inability to distinguish between the physics-based world of objects without intention, and the political world of object with intention that I referred to in this post.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

So your saying Mathew, Mark, Luke and John didnt actually write the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John?

I'm saying none of the above was an eyewitness.

They recorded events between 70 - 110 years after they occurred, and all 4 of them lived in different parts of the world (Syria, Rome and Turkey).

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's no unbiased support for the claims of any eyewitness - there's simply the testimony of someone who claims they were an eyewitness. They give their "evidence" and you, the jury, evaluate it. You can dismiss their evidence if you like. But it is evidence.

The best historical documents have unbiased corroborating evidence to go with them. It may not be perfectly unbiased (is anything?) but corroborating eveidence from sources that either would have no reason to lie or would be expected to be counter to the original source would be a good way to tell if a source is reliable. The godels writers claims, as they have no corroborating evidence, are only evidence that they made the claim, they are not evidence for the veracity of the claims.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to have missed the point. The point was that different people conclude different things from the evidence. And that the example of one person, who is supremely qualified to evaluate evidence concludes positively for the Resurrection. That others conclude negatively is neither here nor there - the point being that evidence is there and is viewed differently.

And thats why we dont teach anything because everyone would just conclude different things from any evidence given and no consensus could ever be reached....Oh wait we do teach things, because if people look at evidence honestly and as objectively as possible, we tend to reach consensus on things. We can figure out what is good and reliable evidence and what is bad and unreliable and therefore what claims can be supported and what cant. Its how science works, we simply could not make anything if people didn't reach consensus on ideas. That sometimes people come do a different conclusion based on the same evidence that everyone else sees, is neither here nor there as just because someone has a different view, doesn't mean its immediately valid, call to authority or otherwise.

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

But those are reasons to dismiss organised/institutionalised religion. If all these religions are untrue and all religious texts were phony and all religious teaching was made up this would have no impact on wheather or not a "God" exists.

I mean if there is a "GOD" he would still exist even if all religious teachings about him were false/inaccurate.

(By "God" I mean that there is something more to this world/life/universe than simply living dieing and then that being the end.)

What most people believe about god is based on religious texts. Even ignoring these people, the other people who believe in a wishy washy "something outside the universe, what shall we call it, oh yeah god" god have no rational reason to do so. Its a baseless assumption, made partially from ignorance and partially from (semi) religious cultures subconciously convincing most people that you need some god, any god, for morals to means something or for existense of the world or some such nonsense.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

robindch wrote: »

A lot of people do make this error and it's sufficiently common, consistent and explicable that I think there's a credible case to be made that it should be elevated from just a common-or-garden thinko up to whatever is the lowest level of classifiable cognitive disorders.

Basically, it's the inability to distinguish between the physics-based world of objects without intention, and the political world of object with intention that I referred to in this post.

That is highly interesting... it ties in with what Steven Pinker says in a book I'm reading at the moment.
Could you maybe point to more material on the subject? Books, links, anything of that ilk? Thanks!

pH

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

So your saying Mathew, Mark, Luke and John didnt actually write the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John?

I depends on who you think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are.

For example the guy who wrote Matthew may have been called Matthew himself, but most scholars today now don't think that it was written by the Apostle Matthew.

As for Luke

The writer of this anonymous gospel was probably a Gentile Christian.[11] The Church Fathers, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke.[37] The oldest manuscript of the gospel P75 (circa 200) carries the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke”.[38][39] however another manuscript P4 from about the same time period[40][41] has no such (surviving) attribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Mark:

The Gospel of Mark was composed by an anonymous author,[2] traditionally believed to be Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a cousin of Barnabas.[7] There is external evidence that the Gospel of Mark may have been based on the preaching of a disciple of Peter. However, this is an area of ongoing debate.[1][8] (See also the Augustinian hypothesis)

And finally John:

Mainstream scholars view the Gospel of John as being a largely historically unreliable written account by an anonymous author posthumous to the Apostle and could not have been an eyewitness to the historical Jesus.[5][6][36][40][41][42][43] They also argue the traditional identification of the book's author, denoted in the text as the "beloved disciple", with the apostle John is false.[6][43] The Gospel was likely written c. 90-100, possibly in Ephesus.[44] Most scholars who disagree with the traditional view believe it likely that John was martyred around the time James was, as suggested by Mark 10:39 and Acts 12:1-2.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Some may indeed regard it as "evidence", but given the enormity of the claims at stake, it's pretty shoddy and haphazard.

You're merely reiterating the faulty thinking I'm dealing with. Some don't regard the evidence as shoddy whereas you do. The evidence is merely the evidence. No "" required.

I'd imagine a Creator of all of Time and Space, had he wanted us to know he was there, would have been a bit less, well, human in his attempts to communicate.

If the Creator of all time and space also wanted to leave open the position of retaining unbelief then things might not be so straightforward. A case of your assumptions informing your evaluation of the evidence it would seem?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence (eg: the testimony of the gospel writers) it's just that you reject it. Now, you'll have reasons for doing so and you clearly find those reasons compelling - but that is not to say your view is correct.

The evidence is there and other perfectly intelligent and perfectly rational people can and have come to a different conclusion to you.

How rational and intelligent they are is rather irrelevant. The issue is how rational and intelligent their reasons for believing are. And when you examine them closely the reasons fall apart.

I agree that saying there is no evidence for belief in God is incorrect since anything can be evidence if it simply points to a conclusion. The drunk on the street has evidence the CIA are stealing his thoughts.

A more accurate statement would be there are not rational intelligent reasons for believing in God. That doesn't mean rational intelligent people don't believe in God, it just means they do for for non-rational reasons, mostly emotional ones.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm reminded of Lord Chief Justice Darling, someone supremely versed in the rational evaluation of evidence. He opined that there wasn't an intelligent jury who, on evaluating the evidence presented (presumably constrained to the method of evaluation applicable to juries) wouldn't find for the Resurrection of Christ.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. That is not a rational reason to believe in God. I can't find anywhere where Darling actually explains why this evidence is so irrefutable other than his personal belief that people wouldn't make this stuff up.

Ask an Islamic judge, or a Hindu judge, he would probably say the same thing

housetypeb

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm saying none of the above was an eyewitness.

They recorded events between 70 - 110 years after they occurred, and all 4 of them lived in different parts of the world (Syria, Rome and Turkey).

I always understood it as the gospel ACCORDING to MARK or whoever.
Either way the gospels are only hearsay as they were not eyewitness to what they are writing about. That makes it faction at best and fiction ( my view)at worst.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're merely reiterating the faulty thinking I'm dealing with. Some don't regard the evidence as shoddy whereas you do.

A fact that continues to bemuse and frustrate many of us here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the Creator of all time and space also wanted to leave open the position of retaining unbelief then things might not be so straightforward. A case of your assumptions informing your evaluation of the evidence it would seem?

My assumtions informing my evaluation of the evidence?!

Why would anyone assume a Creator (who sent his only son to perform miracles, be murdered, and rise from the dead) would leave open a position to retain unbelief - apart from a weak attempt to explain the paucity of evidence for his existence? That is a classic case of hearing hooves and thinking of zebras!

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the Creator of all time and space also wanted to leave open the position of retaining unbelief

And what exactly does he want to do that for?

Why write a book full of stories, many of which are clearly makey-uppey, then get upset when people don't manage to pick and choose the ones which happen to be fully true as written.

That kind of creator is simply nuts.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

robindch wrote: »

And what exactly does he want to do that for?

Why write a book full of stories, many of which are clearly makey-uppey, then get upset when people don't manage to pick and choose the ones which happen to be fully true as written.

That kind of creator is simply nuts.

It's the kind of creator that would bury stony bones, just to make humans test their faith...

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Shenshen wrote: »

Could you maybe point to more material on the subject? Books, links, anything of that ilk?

Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell covers it too, albeit using a slightly different perspective.

These two books are also worth investigating:

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195178033/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285847476&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901351/ref=sr_1_2?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285847500&sr=8-2

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

robindch wrote: »

Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell covers it too, albeit using a slightly different perspective.

These two books are also worth investigating:

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195178033/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285847476&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901351/ref=sr_1_2?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285847500&sr=8-2

Thanks!
I'll put those on the list for the next big shopping trip in book stores

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I would start with adding, but immediately move onto subtraction when adding is done. I wouldn't wait until they were grown up out of fear of subtraction frightening them from algebra, as subtraction is as much a part of algebra as addition, wether I like it or not.

Fair enough

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why not teach them everything when they grow up, why do you need to teach them any religion at all when they are young? How are they supposed ot have an unbiased view of religion if they are brought up that its all luvvy-duvvy because no-one ever told them what is actually in the bible?

In a perfect world you shouldnt but this is simply not feasible as if you were to do this you would have to shelter him from all mention of Christianity and not celebrate Christmas or Easter (which would be unfair) and if you were a practicing Christian who went to mass you could hardly lie about where you were going and you will have more difficulty when their friends are making their 1st communion and confirmation etc.

And if they are children they are not supposed to have an unbiased view as all their views will be affected by their parents beliefs but this is OK as long as you encourage them to question and critically examine their beliefs when they are older.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Just taking this back a bit, the reason gospels cannot be taken as SOLID evidence is because it is just too likely to have been altered/manipulated etc. In addition, they were uneducated (by our standards) and didn't understand the world around them. Even if it were an accurate report of what they said/saw you cannot assign any truth to their opinion.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You yourself are the best examplt of this. You made assertions on how good the bible was and how nice it is and had to be corrected by people on this forum on what was actually in the bible. Its damn near impossible to make an unbiased decision on religion if you have been brought up on a bastardised version of it.

You dont know the first thing about me and have absolutely no idea as to what my upbringing entailed so dont even try to use me as an example of someone who was brought up in a certain way as you are assuming you're right based on no evidence (very hypocritical of an atheist if you ask me).

iguana

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even ignoring these people, the other people who believe in a wishy washy "something outside the universe, what shall we call it, oh yeah god" god have no rational reason to do so. Its a baseless assumption, made partially from ignorance and partially from (semi) religious cultures subconciously convincing most people that you need some god, any god, for morals to means something or for existense of the world or some such nonsense.

Not really it's an assumption based on the fact that we don't want to stop existing. We know we are going to die one day and almost everyone has already lost loved ones. Most people want to live on somehow and to one day be with the dead we have lost. Accepting that there is no God, no religion, no reincarnation, no heaven, etc, means accepting that there is a moment in the future where we will stop existing. We experience our entire lives from our own perspectives, it's very hard to get your head around not existing anymore. (Sorry if it's a spoiler but look at just how many people didn't understand how The Sopranos ended.)

It's also both difficult and heartbreaking to come to terms with the fact that our dead loved ones are just gone. It's easier to believe there is some sort of something that we go to or become after death. That not only do we get to continue but that we will continue alongside those we love. It's comforting to believe that there is something after death, people want it to be real. It's a bit like an older child who knows deep down that there is no Santa Claus but still sort of believes because a magical being who brings you toys once a year is soooo much more exciting than acknowledging that your parents bought them for you in a shop.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Dades wrote: »

Some may indeed regard it as "evidence", but given the enormity of the claims at stake, it's pretty shoddy and haphazard.

Yes but it is still evidence!

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes but it is still evidence!

It's not valid evidence.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What most people believe about god is based on religious texts. Even ignoring these people, the other people who believe in a wishy washy "something outside the universe, what shall we call it, oh yeah god" god have no rational reason to do so. Its a baseless assumption, made partially from ignorance and partially from (semi) religious cultures subconciously convincing most people that you need some god, any god, for morals to means something or for existense of the world or some such nonsense.

True but this has no affect on wheather or not "God" exists.

If God exists he would still exist even if most people base their belief in him on lies.

if someone believes 2+2=4 because they read a book where a magic snail said it did and they believed this book was fact, then their logic is messed up but they are still correct as 2+2 does =4

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

True but this has no affect on wheather or not "God" exists.

If God exists he would still exist even if most people base their belief in him on lies.

if someone believes 2+2=4 because they read a book where a magic snail said it did and they believed this book was fact, then their logic is messed up but they are still correct as 2+2 does =4

This is a circular argument. Why does god exist? because the bible says so. Why is the bible correct? Because god said so.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

It's not valid evidence.

I never said it was i went into it in detail in an earlier post:

Des Carter wrote: »

I would tend to agree with most points here but in a trial, eye-witness accounts ARE USED AS EVIDENCE and they are still evidence - even if the trial is taking place many years after the event or/and after the witness may have been compromised/threatened etc by the person they are accusing.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

This is a circular argument. Why does god exist? because the bible says so. Why is the bible correct? Because god said so.

I never once said that I believe in God because the Bible says he exists! - This is the view held by many Christians but I never said it was my view.
I also never said the Bible is correct!
And I would agree that the circular argument IS ridiculous.

however I was asking a poster why he didnt believe in God and the reply I got was "because all religious texts and teachings are flawed and cant be proven" (not exactly what he said but near enough)

and so I made the point that just because people draw their conclusions irrationally doesnt mean they're not correct and I gave the example of a magic snail to clarify what I was saying.

so any thoughts?

iguana

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

you would have to shelter him from all mention of Christianity and not celebrate Christmas or Easter (which would be unfair)

"You can save more souls with roller skates and Easy-Bake ovens than you can with this two thousand page sleeping pill?"

Why exactly would you have to avoid our cultural holidays which the majority of civilisations, and certainly our ancestors, have been celebrating for millenia?

Christmas is the Christian co-opting of the mid-winter holiday celebrated by most Europeans. It is held on December 25th which I believe was the solstice date on the Julian Calender. Many cultures celebrated this day as that of being the birth of their sun god as it is after the longest night of that the "sun is born" and begins to grow in strength. Easter is the festival of the spring Equinox. It is held annually on the first Sunday after the first new moon following the equinox.

These festivals couldn't be more pagan if they tried. And they themselves grew from how early pastoral societies saw the world as sowing, growing, harvesting and storing food were so important to their survival. Celebrating these festivals now is just a way of staying in touch with our roots, staying attuned to the seasons and nature and most importantly having a laugh.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

I never said it was i went into it in detail in an earlier post:

I would tend to agree with most points here but in a trial, eye-witness accounts ARE USED AS EVIDENCE and they are still evidence - even if the trial is taking place many years after the event or/and after the witness may have been compromised/threatened etc by the person they are accusing.[/QUOTE]

It again goes back to the validity of evidence and their knowledge of the world around them. They may honestly believe that jesus rose from the dead for example, but being that they were uneducated, I would not regard it valid or admissable.

Also keep in mind that in a court system, they will be getting the information straight from the eyewitness, not a copy of a copy of a copy etc. which is itself susceptible to manipulation and lieing and translational errors.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

I never once said that I believe in God because the Bible says he exists! - This is the view held by many Christians but I never said it was my view.
I also never said the Bible is correct!
And I would agree that the circular argument IS ridiculous.

however I was asking a poster why he didnt believe in God and the reply I got was "because all religious texts and teachings are flawed and cant be proven" (not exactly what he said but near enough)

and so I made the point that just because people draw their conclusions irrationally doesnt mean they're not correct and I gave the example of a magic snail to clarify what I was saying.

so any thoughts?

religious texts are the only source that exists that points to the existence of a god. There is no other basis for it. Whereas in your example, there are 2 sources. Mathematical knowledge and the snail.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

I never said it was i went into it in detail in an earlier post:

And it's been pointed out to you that as the writers weren't eye witnesses, or witnesses of any kind since all they ever witnessed was other people's stories, it's not only not valid evidence, it's not evidence at all.

Such accounts would never be accepted as evidence by any court.

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

In a perfect world you shouldnt but this is simply not feasible as if you were to do this you would have to shelter him from all mention of Christianity and not celebrate Christmas or Easter (which would be unfair) and if you were a practicing Christian who went to mass you could hardly lie about where you were going and you will have more difficulty when their friends are making their 1st communion and confirmation etc.

You dont have to lie to them about it, just tell them that its something they should make up their minds about when they are older. You dont even need to hide them from anything mentioning religion too.
Think of it like this: You want your kids to grow up and have a career that they like, that gives them satisfaction and supports them financially, but you wouldn't bring them up telling them that being a binman means you get to hang off the side of a bin truck all day. You would want them to know the entire truth about any prospective careers they might want, so they can make the best decision for themselves. This doesn't require you to shelter them from any mentioning of a career, just doing damage control on any propaganda they might hear and encouraging them not to make any definite opinions until they are older.

Des Carter wrote: »

And if they are children they are not supposed to have an unbiased view as all their views will be affected by their parents beliefs but this is OK as long as you encourage them to question and critically examine their beliefs when they are older.

But they wont critically examine their beliefs when they are older, if they aren't taught to when they are younger.

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

You dont know the first thing about me and have absolutely no idea as to what my upbringing entailed so dont even try to use me as an example of someone who was brought up in a certain way as you are assuming you're right based on no evidence (very hypocritical of an atheist if you ask me).

You made claims on what Jesus said, and when those claims where debunked, you had to revert to that ol' apologetisist goat "it was metaphorical". You are not alone in this. Most catholics in this country are like this - my mom is like this - they have only been told about the good things in the bible (with the implication that bible came up with them) and have no idea of the nasty stuff.

iguana

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

if someone believes 2+2=4 because they read a book where a magic snail said it did and they believed this book was fact, then their logic is messed up but they are still correct as 2+2 does =4

No, they are just parroting something without understanding it. You can teach a parrot to say 2+2is4 but it doesn't mean the parrot understands math. When you actually understand how and why 2+2=4 you have the tools to work out that 1+3 also =4, that 4-2=2, that two odd numbers and two even numbers always = an even number but that an odd and even number always make an odd number, that 2x2=4, etc. You have the basis that you can use to understand how numbers work and why it's important to understand that.

Go into any infant class. Teachers don't just tell children 2+2=4 and tell them to accept it. They give them 2 blocks and 2 blocks and ask them to count those blocks so the child has worked out that they have 4 blocks. When you teach people to parrot you don't teach them anything, only to repeat what they don't understand. It leads to ignorance and an inability to seek out understanding of the mechanics of what they have heard/been told. A prime example is using terms like "The Selfish Gene" without actually understanding it.

Children have a deep desire to understand. It's why they go through a "why?" stage. Being told something is because it is, is not good enough for a toddler. They want you to explain why, and when you've explained that they want to know the "why" of several aspects of your explanation. It's quite annoying sometimes but also a wonder to see how much humans really thirst to understand. Blind faith can subdue that instinct because the fact is the universe is such that for every answer we find we turn up more questions. Just like a toddler. We should be encouraging our species to find more questions to answer and then striving to answer them, not pacifying ourselves with the idea that there are eternal mysteries which can be answered by God in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes but it is still evidence!

I AM GOD

There you go, that sentence is evidence that I am god. Anybody want to worship me?

iguana

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I AM GOD

There you go, that sentence is evidence that I am god. Anybody want to worship me?

Meh, maybe if you were Harrison Ford.:p

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

True but this has no affect on wheather or not "God" exists.

If God exists he would still exist even if most people base their belief in him on lies.

if someone believes 2+2=4 because they read a book where a magic snail said it did and they believed this book was fact, then their logic is messed up but they are still correct as 2+2 does =4

My arguments are against peoples reasoning for believing in god, not for his existence. If no-one can come up with a rational reason for god to exist then why believe?

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

however I was asking a poster why he didnt believe in God and the reply I got was "because all religious texts and teachings are flawed and cant be proven" (not exactly what he said but near enough)

I dont expect them to be proven, just there to be a reasoned line of logic from the texts to a belief in god. There is not.

Des Carter wrote: »

and so I made the point that just because people draw their conclusions irrationally doesnt mean they're not correct and I gave the example of a magic snail to clarify what I was saying.

so any thoughts?

But if all you can do is examine peoples conclusions and thought processes, and all you see is irrationality, is it rational for you to still believe in what they believe? People may have the right answer, but they are still wrong, and without a way to determine the right answer, you cant assume there is a right answer.

Mark Hamill

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

iguana wrote: »

Meh, maybe if you were Harrison Ford.:p

I can do Morgan Freeman

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

iguana wrote: »

"You can save more souls with roller skates and Easy-Bake ovens than you can with this two thousand page sleeping pill?"

Why exactly would you have to avoid our cultural holidays which the majority of civilisations, and certainly our ancestors, have been celebrating for millenia?

Christmas is the Christian co-opting of the mid-winter holiday celebrated by most Europeans. It is held on December 25th which I believe was the solstice date on the Julian Calender. Many cultures celebrated this day as that of being the birth of their sun god as it is after the longest night of that the "sun is born" and begins to grow in strength. Easter is the festival of the spring Equinox. It is held annually on the first Sunday after the first new moon following the equinox.

These festivals couldn't be more pagan if they tried. And they themselves grew from how early pastoral societies saw the world as sowing, growing, harvesting and storing food were so important to their survival. Celebrating these festivals now is just a way of staying in touch with our roots, staying attuned to the seasons and nature and most importantly having a laugh.

1st off Im well aware of where these holidays originate from but you would have to avoid them as your child would start asking questions about Santa and Jesus etc (from ads/cards/other children) and then you would have to tell them about christianity and thats exposing them to a religion which is supposedly bad.

as for having a laugh you have obviously never spent a Christmas with my family

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

It again goes back to the validity of evidence and their knowledge of the world around them. They may honestly believe that jesus rose from the dead for example, but being that they were uneducated, I would not regard it valid or admissable.

Also keep in mind that in a court system, they will be getting the information straight from the eyewitness, not a copy of a copy of a copy etc. which is itself susceptible to manipulation and lieing and translational errors.

Ok after doing a quick google search it is unknown as to who wrote the Gospels however there is evidence that Luke was the author of his one.

I will need to read up on this topic before I can continue this discussion.

However if the Bible is so unreliable how can you be expected to take Jesus' actual words as his actual words - you cant and so it would be irrational to take the Bible literally.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok after doing a quick google search it is unknown as to who wrote the Gospels however there is evidence that Luke was the author of his one.

I will need to read up on this topic before I can continue this discussion.

However if the Bible is so unreliable how can you be expected to take Jesus' actual words as his actual words - you cant and so it would be irrational to take the Bible literally.

Correct!

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

religious texts are the only source that exists that points to the existence of a god. There is no other basis for it. Whereas in your example, there are 2 sources. Mathematical knowledge and the snail.

how are you so sure I mean it is a known fact that humans buried their dead with valuables etc. - this shows that they believed that there was something more to the world and life - and this was done long before religious texts.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

how are you so sure I mean it is a known fact that humans buried their dead with valuables etc. - this shows that they believed that there was something more to the world and life - and this was done long before religious texts.

Perhaps its more correct to say "religious ideas" rather than "religious texts" if we're going to take it that far back in history. Religious texts simply follow on from religious ideas. But again, just because they believed it to be so doesn't mean that it was.

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

I will need to read up on this topic before I can continue this discussion. [...] However if the Bible is so unreliable [...]

Check out the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_2?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285857135&sr=8-2

Frightful title aside, it's written using primary source material only (ie, the extant texts of the new testament) and it's written from as independent a perspective as you're ever likely to get in these discussions.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You dont have to lie to them about it, just tell them that its something they should make up their minds about when they are older. You dont even need to hide them from anything mentioning religion too.
Think of it like this: You want your kids to grow up and have a career that they like, that gives them satisfaction and supports them financially, but you wouldn't bring them up telling them that being a binman means you get to hang off the side of a bin truck all day. You would want them to know the entire truth about any prospective careers they might want, so they can make the best decision for themselves. This doesn't require you to shelter them from any mentioning of a career, just doing damage control on any propaganda they might hear and encouraging them not to make any definite opinions until they are older.


But they wont critically examine their beliefs when they are older, if they aren't taught to when they are younger.

OK I asked this earlier and will now ask you:

Des Carter wrote: »

So if you were a critical thinking Christian who did not force your views on your child in an over-authoritarian way, taught them that there are other possibilities out there and encouraged them to question beliefs if they doubted them - Then it would be acceptable to raise your child in a Christian upbringing?

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok after doing a quick google search it is unknown as to who wrote the Gospels however there is evidence that Luke was the author of his one.

I will need to read up on this topic before I can continue this discussion.

However if the Bible is so unreliable how can you be expected to take Jesus' actual words as his actual words - you cant and so it would be irrational to take the Bible literally.

Which directly leads to wondering why you would consider the bible anything but a nice collection of stories in any case?

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You made claims on what Jesus said, and when those claims where debunked, you had to revert to that ol' apologetisist goat "it was metaphorical". You are not alone in this. Most catholics in this country are like this - my mom is like this - they have only been told about the good things in the bible (with the implication that bible came up with them) and have no idea of the nasty stuff.

I never made claims on what jesus said and they weren't debunked (as they were never made) in fact what I said was:

Des Carter wrote: »

No the Bible isnt reliable at all for one it was written many years after Jesus died and so words and events that were recorded mayhave errors. Also whoever was writing them may have put their own spin on things for many reasons. Also there may have been problems when it came to translations from 1 language to another and so parts may be phrased poorly but still taken as fact/literal and finally the Church added in and took out sections and teachings so they could push their own agenda and so no we dont know which passages were edited and which werent.

However the broad teachings in the Bible are (for the most part) good and teach us how to live a morally good life - it is only when you go into the wordings and minute details that the more sinister teachings show themselves.

And I really dont know how you can draw conclusions about my childhood on what I have written.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Shenshen wrote: »

Which directly leads to wondering why you would consider the bible anything but a nice collection of stories in any case?

I never said they weren't stories infact I was in a number of arguments over me claiming that many of the teachings in the bible WERE stories and only had morals and were not to be taken literally

iguana

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

1st off Im well aware of where these holidays originate from but you would have to avoid them as your child would start asking questions about Santa and Jesus etc (from ads/cards/other children) and then you would have to tell them about christianity and thats exposing them to a religion which is supposedly bad.

No exposing them to religion is a good and necessary thing. It's just that you tell them about what people do and did believe in and how those beliefs shaped our culture. Religion is fascinating as a historical and sociological study.

Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I ignore it. I'll also be teaching them about the royal houses of the past even though I'm not a monarchist. I'll be teaching them about many wars and genocides even tough I'm an ideological pacifist. (I'll also teach them how to fight.) I'll teach them about monarchy, democracy, fascism, communism and anarchy even though all are, to varying degrees, flawed systems. I'll teach them about economics even though I strongly disagree that it's a science and much of it's practices because it's still a fascinating subject with very real implications of society. You can't teach children to think for themselves if you don't give them every opportunity to learn or keep certain subjects taboo.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

iguana wrote: »

No, they are just parroting something without understanding it. You can teach a parrot to say 2+2is4 but it doesn't mean the parrot understands math. When you actually understand how and why 2+2=4 you have the tools to work out that 1+3 also =4, that 4-2=2, that two odd numbers and two even numbers always = an even number but that an odd and even number always make an odd number, that 2x2=4, etc. You have the basis that you can use to understand how numbers work and why it's important to understand that.

Go into any infant class. Teachers don't just tell children 2+2=4 and tell them to accept it. They give them 2 blocks and 2 blocks and ask them to count those blocks so the child has worked out that they have 4 blocks. When you teach people to parrot you don't teach them anything, only to repeat what they don't understand. It leads to ignorance and an inability to seek out understanding of the mechanics of what they have heard/been told.

Children have a deep desire to understand. It's why they go through a "why?" stage. Being told something is because it is, is not good enough for a toddler. They want you to explain why, and when you've explained that they want to know the "why" of several aspects of your explanation. It's quite annoying sometimes but also a wonder to see how much humans really thirst to understand. Blind faith can subdue that instinct because the fact is the universe is such that for every answer we find we turn up more questions. Just like a toddler. We should be encouraging our species to find more questions to answer and then striving to answer them, not pacifying ourselves with the idea that there are eternal mysteries which can be answered by God in the Kingdom of Heaven.

+100

I couldnt agree more.

Des Carter

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

iguana wrote: »

No exposing them to religion is a good and necessary thing. It's just that you tell them about what people do and did believe in and how those beliefs shaped our culture. Religion is fascinating as a historical and sociological study.

Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I ignore it. I'll also be teaching them about the royal houses of the past even though I'm not a monarchist. I'll be teaching them about many wars and genocides even tough I'm an ideological pacifist. (I'll also teach them how to fight.) I'll teach them about monarchy, democracy, fascism, communism and anarchy even though all are, to varying degrees, flawed systems. I'll teach them about economics even though I strongly disagree that it's a science and much of it's practices because it's still a fascinating subject with very real implications of society. You can't teach children to think for themselves if you don't give them every opportunity to learn or keep certain subjects taboo.

Ok same question as last post on page 23?