ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: iffets12345 on June 25, 2011, 06:11:10 pm
-
Recently I've struck up the courage to go to church and check out my friend's youth group. At first, my Mom seemed really relaxed about it, but I think she assumed it was only a once off and not a proper committment. Now, both my parents are being really unsupportive and cruel about the whole thing making snide remarks and mocking the whole thing. I think it's because their experience with their Christian friends hasn't ended well and they are just really biased. Plus, the church is super far away. Has anyone heard of this kind of situation and what other people do?
-
So I take it your parents are atheists?
What were your religious views before going to this Youth Group thing? Have they changed at all? Being an atheist myself I'd probably advise you not to keep going to church but that's not what you're asking.
I recommend you first think about what your religious views are...if you're 'not sure' then I don't think going to church and becoming a devout Christian is a good idea. Why? Because you could just as easily have had Muslim/Hindu/Jewish friends who convinced you to follow their religion as well.
You should probably ask yourself why your going, if it's just to socialise I'd suggest you go bowling or something :)
-
They're not atheists at all. They're like, ceebs asian parents at life.
My parents have never been strictly religious so I haven't had any religious views. However, I have been surrounded by a lot of Christian friends and I've always been innately interested in becoming a Christian when I was older. I enjoyed going to the youth group and I so far, think it's what I'm looking for.
I'm not an idiot, this isn't some spur of the moment thing. I've been thinking and contemplating about it for a while and have always considered this since I was young.
Of course, not being raised in a religious family I can't just say I'm immediately embracing whatever might happen when I go to church but I think I have a right to explore and see for myself without my parents or other people judging me.
-
I'm not an idiot
Sorry, but this is one of the key requirements for being a Christian
-
Yes, my parents respond similarly to my agnosticism regarding the benefits of meditation, therapies which are supposed to "unblock" someone's natural energies, (such as rebirthing and bioenergetics) and the existence of a collective unconscious. I think they're rather haughty in their belief that anything outside the canon of western science is codswallop.
-
Mainly comes from the fact they have lots of old friends who despite going to church were still pretty hypocritical, unreliable people and they're really skeptical.
-
Mainly comes from the fact they have lots of old friends who despite going to church were still pretty hypocritical, unreliable people and they're really skeptical.
Even though they have a point, I think they should base Christianity on its teaching rather the action of the people. It's quite unfortunate that people nowadays don't act upon the teachings of their religion.
Anyway goodluck, and enjoy your holidays ( if you have already)
-
You should attempt to talk to them about it. Tell them how you feel about it, and that you would like their support in your decision. Doesn't have to be a long or eloquent conversation, next time they make a snide remark tell them how that makes you feel. Then you're on the mature, moral high ground, which really throws parents a curve ball because that's where they're used to being.
-
Mainly comes from the fact they have lots of old friends who despite going to church were still pretty hypocritical, unreliable people and they're really skeptical.
Even though they have a point, I think they should base Christianity on its teaching rather the action of the people. It's quite unfortunate that people nowadays don't act upon the teachings of their religion.
Anyway goodluck, and enjoy your holidays ( if you have already)
You should attempt to talk to them about it. Tell them how you feel about it, and that you would like their support in your decision. Doesn't have to be a long or eloquent conversation, next time they make a snide remark tell them how that makes you feel. Then you're on the mature, moral high ground, which really throws parents a curve ball because that's where they're used to being.
Thanks! Will try to talk to them next time Russ. Just that they're really old asian parents, so logic doesn't hold with them sometimes, if you can understand that. but yea, usually I consult this family friend who is a doctor and who my paretns respect, and she usually manages to persuade them to let me do what I want because she trusts my judgement.
and yea I do have holidays souljette
:)
-
I smell peer pressure.
-
only of the most evillest kind :)
-
Recently I've struck up the courage to go to church and check out my friend's youth group. At first, my Mom seemed really relaxed about it, but I think she assumed it was only a once off and not a proper committment. Now, both my parents are being really unsupportive and cruel about the whole thing making snide remarks and mocking the whole thing. I think it's because their experience with their Christian friends hasn't ended well and they are just really biased. Plus, the church is super far away. Has anyone heard of this kind of situation and what other people do?
I'd encourage you to consider all the world religions. Things like this can really stick in your mind before you realise its too late, read a little about buddhism, islam, athiesm, hinduism and what they all believe and think about certain issues and see which one is right for you. I think its also useful to look at criticisms of a particular religion (atheism included) because it also really helps you decide. Wikipedia has a series of articles like Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Athiesm, ect. Just look at comparitive religion.
Your parents certainly can't stop you and you're not really in any physical danger. If they don't like it, too bad. They cant do anything. Just keep going if you think it is truly right for you. They'll stop with the snide remarks sooner or later once they realise you're serious about it.
-
I wish everyone would read, Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
-
I flat out refuse to read anything by that man.
-
Why's that Russ?
-
I flat out refuse to read anything by that man.
Then you are voluntarily ignorant to a prolific writer on the subject, for seemingly no valid reason.
-
I flat out refuse to read anything by that man.
Then you are voluntarily ignorant to a prolific writer on the subject, for seemingly no valid reason.
I also think Richard Dawkins is rubbish.
-
I flat out refuse to read anything by that man.
Then you are voluntarily ignorant to a prolific writer on the subject, for seemingly no valid reason.
I also think Richard Dawkins is rubbish.
Substantiate that claim?
-
I should clarify and say:
As an evolutionary biologist, he's a brilliant writer (there's a reason the Selfish Gene is on the curriculum of most introductory biology courses).
As a social commentator on religion he's...less brilliant. I read the God Delusion but didn't even bother opening his latest
-
I echo those thoughts on Richard Dawkins. I'm an atheist and I find him obnoxious! I think that religion is a very personal thing and should be kept out of politics and schools and such, but what people think of existence/God/the universe, etc. is entirely their business and if they aren't hurting anybody and it works for them, so be it. Richard Dawkins may be right in saying God is a delusion, but he takes it too far by insulting the majority of religious people who are private in their belief in God.
-
I echo those thoughts on Richard Dawkins. I'm an atheist and I find him obnoxious! I think that religion is a very personal thing and should be kept out of politics and schools and such, but what people think of existence/God/the universe, etc. is entirely their business and if they aren't hurting anybody and it works for them, so be it. Richard Dawkins may be right in saying God is a delusion, but he takes it too far by insulting the majority of religious people who are private in their belief in God.
If you don't think it's important to expose the fact that religious belief is a delusion, then you are missing the point. It's about building a more reasonable society. You appear like you've never read Dawkins at all. He crafts his book in a very polite manner with some abrupt statements about the dangers of religion and the damage that religion does to people. I challenge you to find me a passage in the God Delusion where he's simply being "obnoxious". You can also choose to show me a youtube video if you'd like!
-
I echo those thoughts on Richard Dawkins. I'm an atheist and I find him obnoxious! I think that religion is a very personal thing and should be kept out of politics and schools and such, but what people think of existence/God/the universe, etc. is entirely their business and if they aren't hurting anybody and it works for them, so be it. Richard Dawkins may be right in saying God is a delusion, but he takes it too far by insulting the majority of religious people who are private in their belief in God.
If you don't think it's important to expose the fact that religious belief is a delusion, then you are missing the point. It's about building a more reasonable society. You appear like you've never read Dawkins at all. He crafts his book in a very polite manner with some abrupt statements about the dangers of religion and the damage that religion does to people. I challenge you to find me a passage in the God Delusion where he's simply being "obnoxious". You can also choose to show me a youtube video if you'd like!
No Dan, there is a difference between educating people and being a douche. Just because you are justified in your beliefs do not imply you can hunt down and ridicule others. That would be like me saying anyone who doesn't use linux don't know what a computer is.
-
I echo those thoughts on Richard Dawkins. I'm an atheist and I find him obnoxious! I think that religion is a very personal thing and should be kept out of politics and schools and such, but what people think of existence/God/the universe, etc. is entirely their business and if they aren't hurting anybody and it works for them, so be it. Richard Dawkins may be right in saying God is a delusion, but he takes it too far by insulting the majority of religious people who are private in their belief in God.
If you don't think it's important to expose the fact that religious belief is a delusion, then you are missing the point. It's about building a more reasonable society. You appear like you've never read Dawkins at all. He crafts his book in a very polite manner with some abrupt statements about the dangers of religion and the damage that religion does to people. I challenge you to find me a passage in the God Delusion where he's simply being "obnoxious". You can also choose to show me a youtube video if you'd like!
No Dan, there is a difference between educating people and being a douche. Just because you are justified in your beliefs do not imply you can hunt down and ridicule others. That would be like me saying anyone who doesn't use linux don't know what a computer is.
Dawkins doesn't 'hunt down' people. All the people he debates are professional theologians, and all of the questions he gets at panels are from people wanting to ask HIM questions, so you tell me how that's hunting down others.
Again, you're all just playing on hysteria. I challenge you to find me the Dawkins quote or video or whatever where Dawkins is obnoxious.
None of you have been forthcoming with such a piece of evidence. It has become quite fashionable, hip, almost, for atheists to go "I'M AN ATHEIST, BUT, DAWKINS IS A DICK!1111" without being able to substantiate it at all.
Substantiate it.
-
Christopher Hitchens on the other hand....
:P
-
Should I try Hitchens?
Dawkins doesn't 'hunt down' people. All the people he debates are professional theologians, and all of the questions he gets at panels are from people wanting to ask HIM questions, so you tell me how that's hunting down others.
I don't think he hunts down others, but publishing a book called The God Delusion is inflammatory, regardless of his explanation/justification of the title inside. I will find my copy later and reread to see if there's anything specific, but my problem is with how he comes across in his writings on the matter/issues. He was on QandA last year apparently and his description of religion, the Bible etc. could be softened to be more palatable...that is, I suppose, a largely personal tolerance issue but it's enough for me to not want to keep reading him.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, I don't like his writing based on my experiences with it not because of any one, specific incident.
-
Should I try Hitchens?
Dawkins doesn't 'hunt down' people. All the people he debates are professional theologians, and all of the questions he gets at panels are from people wanting to ask HIM questions, so you tell me how that's hunting down others.
I don't think he hunts down others, but publishing a book called The God Delusion is inflammatory, regardless of his explanation/justification of the title inside. I will find my copy later and reread to see if there's anything specific, but my problem is with how he comes across in his writings on the matter/issues. He was on QandA last year apparently and his description of religion, the Bible etc. could be softened to be more palatable...that is, I suppose, a largely personal tolerance issue but it's enough for me to not want to keep reading him.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, I don't like his writing based on my experiences with it not because of any one, specific incident.
So what you're saying is, you've got nothing. Okay.
-
Im so glad I brought it up :)
PS: For anyone who wants to see the irrational creationist mind at work,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&playnext=1&list=PL3FB40FDF5A1401C2
oh that impudent laugh *face palm*
-
So what you're saying is, you've got nothing. Okay.
No, I just don't have a clear cut reason for it.
-
I echo those thoughts on Richard Dawkins. I'm an atheist and I find him obnoxious! I think that religion is a very personal thing and should be kept out of politics and schools and such, but what people think of existence/God/the universe, etc. is entirely their business and if they aren't hurting anybody and it works for them, so be it. Richard Dawkins may be right in saying God is a delusion, but he takes it too far by insulting the majority of religious people who are private in their belief in God.
I sorta get what your saying but I believe Dawkins has explained his reasons for being somewhat 'obnoxious'. He's explained that he believes that religion deserves no respect as it hasn't earned it in any way. But to be honest, I've read TGD and haven't felt that he's been unreasonable at any point. Personally, I prefer Sam Harris to Dawkins anyway.
Oh and I can't wait for Hitch to come down in September (I think) so I might get my book signed xD
-
I don't think it is very important whether or not specific religions 'deserve' our respect. To me at least, it is about individual people, how they practice their religion, the compassion they show others, etc. Certainly some people acting in the name of religion are evil and stupid and evil and stupidity is sometimes justified by the name of religion, but it does not mean that every person who believes in God is deluded or hasn't come to their belief based on intense reflection. The majority of people who believe in God are reasoned, though perhaps not in the way Dawkins would like them to be.
And I have read the God Delusion, though because it was a long time ago and don't remember it well, most of my comments on Dawkins are based on his various media appearances. Here is one where he explicitly doesn't answer the question he is asked about how Darwin contributes to the way morality is understood and just goes into an auto-rant about the awfulness of religion which is essentially a straw man because I don't think that the only reason why religious people don't do bad things is based on a belief in God (even though I've joked that this might be the case in the past) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y29f
Of course, one example does not an oeuvre make, but this is trivially related to the original thread anyway (plus I don't really have enough time to track down the particular media appearance I'm thinking of which I saw when I was abroad and I can't think of the name of the show!). In addition, even though I don't agree with Dawkins, I think his contribution to these debates have been important and worthy of some attention, I just don't feel, as an atheist, that he represents my views. But that's fine, he doesn't have to.
I find it offensive and baseless, enwiabe, that you think that the formation of my view is based on the trendiness of having it also.
-
I don't think someone's religious beliefs should be a basis on which you judge their worthiness of your respect. There are plenty of religious nutcases out there, but there are also plenty of religious people out there for whom their beliefs are a source of moral guidance and support. We have no right to say that someone doesn't deserve our respect because their views don't quite align with our own; rather, we should give people respect based on their actions and ethics. I believe in god, but to me god is not some floaty spirit or human-like being, but rather an abstract being that is beyond the scope of human understanding.I wouldn't call myself a creationist as that suggests the rejection of the theory of evolution, and I 100% agree that complex life is the product of evolution. In the end, god to me is what produced my human life, complete with consciousness and emotion, out of what was initially a giant, unfathomably hot mass of sub-atomic particles. Until science can disprove the existence of higher beings, we are all entitled to speculate, believe or refuse to believe. I don't hold anyone's ideas about religion against them, whether they be happy-clappy evangelists or richard dawkins, and I'd like to hope they we are above such prejudice here. The OP has every right to explore religion and make up her mind without facing the obstacle of other people's bigotry.
-
Would you respect someone whose morals include that women and homosexuals are inferior, and that pillage, rape and murder is okay as long as the village/town/city/people in question does not conform to certain aspects of your views?
Then why do you respect those who obtain their morals from a book which endorses these things?
And if you are one of those who believe in an almighty, all-knowing god, but do not hold these morals, why do you go against his/her/its (clearly stated) rules?
-
Would you respect someone whose morals include that women and homosexuals are inferior, and that pillage, rape and murder is okay as long as the village/town/city/people in question does not conform to certain aspects of your views?
Then why do you respect those who obtain their morals from a book which endorses these things?
And if you are one of those who believe in an almighty, all-knowing god, but do not hold these morals, why do you go against his/her/its (clearly stated) rules?
Because they are hypocritical morons, only choosing what they deem to be fit in a modern society, god/bible has no connection to morality, I could just as easily claim my calculator is the divine creator who passed down a certain set of commandments (which will later be refined by the masses accordingly), the proof will be identical, Christians who are mentally deficient just seem to think theirs is more plausible when in reality its not, in fact given that faith is the main cornerstone of religion, more people should congregate to my calculator, such strong delusion (faith) is proportional to fidelity which is considered an achievement, something based on no experience, just illogical impractical delusions of grandeur
-
Would you respect someone whose morals include that women and homosexuals are inferior, and that pillage, rape and murder is okay as long as the village/town/city/people in question does not conform to certain aspects of your views?
Then why do you respect those who obtain their morals from a book which endorses these things?
And if you are one of those who believe in an almighty, all-knowing god, but do not hold these morals, why do you go against his/her/its (clearly stated) rules?
There are heaps of people who believe in God (i.e. most of them) who do not take the religious documents literally. Personally, I don't believe that the bible was written to be taken literally (I mean, there are two creation stories which kind of contradict each other in there), but rather is a book of parables, stories, etc. I don't think that taking these documents literally is logically tenable for the most part.
But in any case, I judge people morally based on their actions, not what their privately held beliefs are. Their privately held beliefs are none of my business and realistically bare minimally on their lives anyway. Most religious people I know also believe in things like gay marriage (or at least the right to civil unions), not murdering others, not raping people, and equality between the sexes. If someone were to do horrible things or believe horrible things justified by the bible or whatever, that reflects poorly on their character and I would not assume that all people who believe in God would do/believe the same.
There is quite clearly diversity in how people choose to enact their belief in God and there is diversity in the way people come to understand their own spirituality. Believe it or not, there are people who really question the meaning of life and existence and reflect upon themselves and end up as religious. I know someone who has questioned this stuff intensively and has arrived at Catholicism. And of course, many of the deepest philosophers were religious. It is not fair to assume delusion or brainwashing when it comes to religious beliefs just because it doesn't match with your own beliefs.
-
What you said about many philosophers is nearly false, many concealed their true beliefs in order to be assimilated in times of catholic rule, its the modern day equivalent of being a homosexual with a alot more prejudice, this was done in order to be subsidised for scientific research (Mendel) or to have your works be published and not be discarded as it was written by an 'infidel'
Religion is obsolete, it has been refined to the point every person may as well have their own religion, good people will do good, bad will do bad, regardless, only in religion can good so mindlessly do bad, with utter compliance and zeal,
How is this to be respected?
-
What you said about many philosophers is nearly false, many concealed their true beliefs in order to be assimilated in times of catholic rule, its the modern day equivalent of being a homosexual with a alot more prejudice, this was done in order to be subsidised for scientific research (Mendel) or to have your works be published and not be discarded as it was written by an 'infidel'
Religion is obsolete, it has been refined to the point every person may as well have their own religion, good people will do good, bad will do bad, regardless, only in religion can good so mindlessly do bad, with utter compliance and zeal,
How is this to be respected?
It is to be respected in the way that people ought to be respected.
-
I dont believe you actually think that means something
-
She's saying that you should respect the right of people to believe whatever they want, insomuch as it is a personal choice that will never affect you - they can be the only arbiter of what is an appropriate belief system for themselves.
Religion is obsolete, it has been refined to the point every person may as well have their own religion, good people will do good, bad will do bad, regardless, only in religion can good so mindlessly do bad, with utter compliance and zeal,
This makes literally no sense, please explain it so I can address your claim that religion is obsolete.
-
All religious texts, everything the churches/synagogues/mosques/etc. proclaim and preach to the masses should be explored with a critical eye, much as one should approach the mass media, research papers, policies, politics and, well, pretty much any proclamation presented as fact. The bible was written 2000 years ago for a largely illiterate audience, every single word in it should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, if a person has questionable morals which they defend with "*insert religious text here* says it's ok", then they should be judged for being an idiot with questionable morals and an obvious incapability to follow any line of logical, ethical reasoning, not for the simple fact that they believe in some religion.
-
The other day this religious person walked up to me and tried to hand me a flyer for something about the end of the world and I said "No thanks" and she just walked away. I mean just like that she just walked away. I DIDN'T EVEN GET A CHANCE TO INSULT HER ABOUT HER BELIEFS OR ANYTHING. Religious people don't deserve my respect.
-
^ Are you being sarcastic?
-
Yes. However if she'd kept bothering me I would have been pretty annoyed.
-
Sorry, bad at catching sarcasm on VN sometimes ;). But I agree with you anyways, although there are many people who do kind of push it onto you. What Eriny said is right, we shouldn't label people purely on their religion, and just because you've had a bad experience with a religious person doesn't mean you can generalise a whole demographic.
-
There are heaps of people who believe in God (i.e. most of them) who do not take the religious documents literally. Personally, I don't believe that the bible was written to be taken literally (I mean, there are two creation stories which kind of contradict each other in there), but rather is a book of parables, stories, etc. I don't think that taking these documents literally is logically tenable for the most part.
So what you're saying is that it's a book of fairytales :P (and yet it's the religious people who get all uppity when atheists say that. Tomahto tomayto.)
If someone is picking and choosing your morals, then they are not basing it on religion. They are basing it on their own (rather arrogant) judgement (who are they to say what god intended to be binding and non-binding rules?).
-
What you said about many philosophers is nearly false, many concealed their true beliefs in order to be assimilated in times of catholic rule, its the modern day equivalent of being a homosexual with a alot more prejudice, this was done in order to be subsidised for scientific research (Mendel) or to have your works be published and not be discarded as it was written by an 'infidel'
Religion is obsolete, it has been refined to the point every person may as well have their own religion, good people will do good, bad will do bad, regardless, only in religion can good so mindlessly do bad, with utter compliance and zeal,
How is this to be respected?
It is to be respected in the way that people ought to be respected.
I don't think it is helpful, nor correct, to respect people's wilful ignorance. We can have this namby pamby "well it's not hurting anyone!!!11" but it IS. Because it's so acceptable in society to be wilfully ignorant that this is taught to children and it corrupts and poisons their minds. Wilful ignorance is how problems get started in society, and no, I will not tolerate, and I WILL ridicule the wilfully ignorant, as should be done until it is societally unacceptable.
-
If religion is such a corrupting, harmful thing, then what say you about religious charities and the commonly held view amongst various religious groups that all humans were created equal and do unto others as you would have them do unto you etc. ? Religion may have caused a lot of serious problems, but it was also the precursor to the human rights movement and plays a large part in society's moral progress throughout history.
-
If religion is such a corrupting, harmful thing, then what say you about religious charities and the commonly held view amongst various religious groups that all humans were created equal and do unto others as you would have them do unto you etc. ? Religion may have caused a lot of serious problems, but it was also the precursor to the human rights movement and plays a large part in society's moral progress throughout history.
Excuse me? How dare you tell me that religion has been a moral beacon for society?
Religion has ensured that AIDS was spread far and wide to the people of Africa. While the Catholic church was greedily sending their missionaries to a vulnerable, desolate place in order to convert as many people as possible on the broken promise of a better life and eternal salvation, they also took with them abstinence only education at a time when they needed condoms. For shame, the catholic church is almost entirely responsible for the fear campaign it waged against condoms in Africa. This lead to an unabated spread of AIDS. Their blood is on their disgusting hands.
The church has killed, tortured and maimed all dissenters for 2000 years and it's only now, only now after we're finally getting our enlightenment period that they've stopped doing that. But Islam hasn't yet had its enlightenment period. They're still killing and torturing apostates. You have only to look at the bloody, disgusting conditions of the Islamic dictatorships to see what life is like in a country adhering strictly to religion.
NO thank you.
You actually have the conclusion in your post. You actually write, "Religion may have caused a lot of serious problems, but it was also the precursor to the human rights movement and plays a large part in society's moral progress throughout history."
"Religion may have caused a lot of serious problems, but it also did good stuff!!!"
I don't care how much you give to charity, if you beat your wife, you're still a gigantic prick. It's the same analogy for religion. It's also laughable that you say that religon was the cause of the human rights movement. Though I guess you're right for a different reason. They did help cause the human rights problem in the first place... People kept slaves in America according to the rules laid down IN THE BIBLE for keeping slaves. The slave trade is what created second class citizens in the first place. It's like my breaking your arm, because my god told me to do so, and then my turning around and saying "PLEASE DON'T GET ME IN TROUBLE OR GO TO THE POLICE! HERE, I'LL PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILL, I'LL HAVE IT FIXED!"
And then 40 years later, I come to you with a shit-eating grin saying "remember how I paid for your medical bills when you broke your arm 40 years ago? Man I'm so awesome :D :D :D"
Religion hasn't been guiding our moral changes. If it had, we'd still be beating homosexuals (see Islamic world where secularism is yet to take root), we'd still stone women for adultery (see Islamic world), etc. No, it's been secularism. It's been the outcry of anguished people, maddened at what the world has come to when religion takes hold and rules with its iron fist of drunk power that has brought RELIGION (not the other way around) kicking and screaming into the 21st century. That is why it is no longer acceptable in society to do many of the things in the bible. Not because the church admitted that they were wrong, because why would someone who thinks they have god on their side willingly admit that? No, because they were forced to change their ways by more reasonable, humane people who banded together and revolutionised our morals through secularism.
It's fucking sick. Religion is NOT a force for good. It is an evil corruption of the mind.
-
If religion is such a corrupting, harmful thing, then what say you about religious charities and the commonly held view amongst various religious groups that all humans were created equal and do unto others as you would have them do unto you etc. ? Religion may have caused a lot of serious problems, but it was also the precursor to the human rights movement and plays a large part in society's moral progress throughout history.
If Hitler is such a terrible person, then what say you about his excellent economic policies, which ensured a high employment rate, the creation of the cheap Volkswagen brand and allowing normal citizens to be able to afford a car, the construction of the Autobahnen, which still today rank among the world's best transport infrastructure, and was generally a popular and well-loved leader who managed to unite so many children and encourage them to participate in physical and creative endeavours? Hitler may have done terrible things, but was also a precursor to many of the things that make Germany a leader today in so many areas.
Hmm.
-
I didn't say that religion has been a moral beacon for society, don't put words in my mouth.
I'll try to be more articulate and straightforward, let me put it this way:
If a man or woman were found guilty of terrible crimes, and they defended their actions through religion, then they would lose any respect I had for them.
Similarly, if a man or woman were found guilty of equally terrible crimes, and they acted for political or personal, non-religious reasons, then they would deserve the same judgement as the person in the first scenario.
Conversely, if someone was motivated by their faith to live a life of benevolence and philanthropy, they would earn my utmost respect, as would someone who led a similar life, but whose moral convictions were not the product of religious beliefs.
If you were to ridicule the religious person for his beliefs, despite the fact that only good had arisen from their faith, would that not be completely hypocritical? It's exactly the kind of persecution which you have been rather vocally and bluntly condemning, enwiabe and ninwa.
As I said before, it's myopic and unfair to judge someone purely based on their personal beliefs, whatever they may be; to do so would be to embrace the kind of backwards intolerance we want to eradicate. People should be judged on their actions; regardless of the reasons, someone who commits a generous act of goodwill deserves respect for it, and someone who commits rape, torture, assault, murder, etc. deserves retribution. It's not about sweeping generalisations and the corruption of major religious organisations such as the Catholic Church, it's about personal choices and one's moral code of conduct.
-
I didn't say that religion has been a moral beacon for society, don't put words in my mouth.
No. You wrote specifically, "[religion] plays a large part in society's moral progress throughout history." - that is the DEFINITION of a moral beacon.
You realise a person's set of beliefs is what guides their actions, yeah? Why is it okay to chastise a homophobe, but not to chastise his religious beliefs which tell him to do so? The belief itself is so obviously flawed, yet we can't criticise it? Buggar off, that's bullshit and you know it. And I won't stand for it.
As for persecution, I'm not persecuting anybody. I'm telling them their belief is wilfully ignorant. I'm not saying I hate them because of it, or that they shouldn't have the same rights as anybody else (provided they're not infringing on anyone else), all I'm doing is saying that they are wilfully ignorant and that they were more than likely brainwashed from a young age to believe what they believe. That's -not- persecution.
There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of ignorance. No society ever came to grief by being more reasonable. -Many- societies have crumbled due to wilful ignorance.
-
It's exactly the kind of persecution which you have been rather vocally and bluntly condemning, enwiabe and ninwa.
Well who's putting words into whose mouth now? All I did was show you how your "religion has done good things" argument is logically fallacious.
-
I don't think it is helpful, nor correct, to respect people's wilful ignorance. We can have this namby pamby "well it's not hurting anyone!!!11" but it IS. Because it's so acceptable in society to be wilfully ignorant that this is taught to children and it corrupts and poisons their minds. Wilful ignorance is how problems get started in society, and no, I will not tolerate, and I WILL ridicule the wilfully ignorant, as should be done until it is societally unacceptable.
I've already said that it is unfair to discount everyone who is religious as being wilfully ignorant. I agree that religion should stay out of schools and the state and I think that it is scary when children are taught of hell as though it were a fact and when important policies do not come to fruition because of logic-less arguments based on God's will. That does not mean that every religious person was brainwashed or is so because of stupidity. Given that nobody knows really anything about the meaning of life or what we are doing here, God may be a valid answer for some. People have the right to their private beliefs.
There are heaps of people who believe in God (i.e. most of them) who do not take the religious documents literally. Personally, I don't believe that the bible was written to be taken literally (I mean, there are two creation stories which kind of contradict each other in there), but rather is a book of parables, stories, etc. I don't think that taking these documents literally is logically tenable for the most part.
So what you're saying is that it's a book of fairytales :P (and yet it's the religious people who get all uppity when atheists say that. Tomahto tomayto.)
If someone is picking and choosing your morals, then they are not basing it on religion. They are basing it on their own (rather arrogant) judgement (who are they to say what god intended to be binding and non-binding rules?).
Sure, but I don't see how picking your morals on the basis of what one thinks God wants is any more or less arrogant that picking your morals based on what one perceives to be 'universally' right or wrong. Ultimately though, I don't think moral reasoning is necessarily about arrogance as it is about trying to make the best decision possible in the face of uncertainty. I would also say that when horrible actions or the ownership of gratuitous power is justified by God, it actually has little to do with belief or morality and is instead an appropriation of religion in order to fulfil personal desire (or just plain insanity).
EDIT: I also wouldn't necessarily call the bible a bunch of fairytales because that denotes that they aren't important, but essentially I suppose you could say that. I'm an atheist so I can't say what religious people think of that assessment.
-
mm
-
Religion may be a vehement and corruptive force, but imagine if It didnt exist, if all societies were completely rational, were there no longer existed a virtue of contentment and everyone though critically, would we really want this? The same way we would want every student of VCE to excel? Lets think of religion as a filter, an antiquated notion (better Russ?) theres a reason its negatively correlated with intelligence, thus it is contingent with demise, perhaps this is just a transitory phase, this may seem crass, but lets enjoy the opportunity it provides
-
My point is basically eriny's point, and she's put it forward very eloquently.
-
I don't think it is helpful, nor correct, to respect people's wilful ignorance. We can have this namby pamby "well it's not hurting anyone!!!11" but it IS. Because it's so acceptable in society to be wilfully ignorant that this is taught to children and it corrupts and poisons their minds. Wilful ignorance is how problems get started in society, and no, I will not tolerate, and I WILL ridicule the wilfully ignorant, as should be done until it is societally unacceptable.
I've already said that it is unfair to discount everyone who is religious as being wilfully ignorant. I agree that religion should stay out of schools and the state and I think that it is scary when children are taught of hell as though it were a fact and when important policies do not come to fruition because of logic-less arguments based on God's will. That does not mean that every religious person was brainwashed or is so because of stupidity. Given that nobody knows really anything about the meaning of life or what we are doing here, God may be a valid answer for some. People have the right to their private beliefs.
No. Enough of this relativist bullshit. You can't, in one fell swoop say "OH BUT MAYBE SOME OF THEM ARE NOT BEING WILFULLY IGNORANT" and then say "GOD MAY BE A VALID ANSWER FOR SOME."
That is the definition of wilful ignorance. Your entire argument is utter crap. In the absence of not knowing the meaning of life, a valid answer or a valid approach is NOT to guess, as religious people do. It is extremely dumb and very weak. And it becomes dangerous when people think they know what they're here for. Once you can convince somebody that they're doing god's work, you can convince a good person to do evil things.
Tell me, without religion, who would look at a baby and say "jee, that's a beautiful baby. now give me a sharp object so i can hack off part of its penis?" only religion has us to do such despicable things when we're otherwise good people.
-
I'm not saying that maybe some of them aren't being wilfully ignorant, I'm saying that most definitely aren't.
-
I'm not saying that maybe some of them aren't being wilfully ignorant, I'm saying that most definitely aren't.
You are being a fool. And you're being wilfully ignorant yourself. Religion is the definition of wilful ignorance. It is accepting something without evidence or facts. That is the definition of wilful ignorance. All religious people are wilfully ignorant.
-
Well, not exactly. Wilful ignorance is the blatant disregard of empirical evidence (climate change denial could be considered wilful ignorance since that most climate scientists would say that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that climate change exists). Believing in God doesn't necessarily entail a denial of empirical evidence. Granted, some of the things fundamentalists believe in would count as wilful ignorance (such as teaching creationism in the stead of evolution).
-
Well, not exactly. Wilful ignorance is the blatant disregard of empirical evidence (climate change denial could be considered wilful ignorance since that most climate scientists would say that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that climate change exists). Believing in God doesn't necessarily entail a denial of empirical evidence. Granted, some of the things fundamentalists believe in would count as wilful ignorance (such as teaching creationism in the stead of evolution).
You're almost there! And now you have to realise that it is the same wilful ignorance that religion uses to makes up its own stories and teaches them as facts to children as to how we got here and why we're here when we don't yet have an answer.
See, it's become an ugly process for religion as the ever-shrinking knowledge gaps of the world they call God are being explained robustly by Science. Go back 1000 years and lightning was god's anger. Go back 2000 years and it was Ra who brought up the sun.
As time progresses, we find the proper answers to these questions, and god shifts from those things to new things that weak people who are uncomfortable with uncertainty dream up to explain god. Yes, god is just the ever-shrinking knowledge gap humans have in explaining the natural world.
So yes, it is the same wilful ignorance when they shift their "god" to the creation of the universe. Sure, scientists have very tenuous theories at best about the origins of the universe, but in the place of that, it is NOT okay to teach "god did it" as if it were something that should be believed and devote your entire life to. That IS wilful ignorance because you have no possible way of knowing that.
So we come back to your point about evolution vs. creation. It's painfully obvious the wilful ignorance of religion teaching creation instead of evolution. Why is it not so painfully obvious when they teach their crap about where the universe came from? Because science doesn't yet have an answer for it, so it's all of a sudden considered "okay" because nobody has an answer for it so they might as well guess. Well I say fuck that, it's still wilful ignorance and it's just as ugly as teaching creation over evolution.
-
I certainly agree that teaching various things that fundamentalists believe as knowledge is wrong and damaging. Ultimately, in the scheme of things I do wonder how far science will take us. I think, for instance, science might be able to come up with a model (or several) of what caused the big bang, but no definitive answer. Some philosophers and scientists think that it is impossible to provide a naturalistic account of how the first DNA was produced. Also, it can't give us any answers about why we are here/the meaning of life/etc., or give us morals, so there would potentially still be a place for God.
Science is also an imperfect way to gain knowledge and is riddled with uncertainties. Mostly because empirical evidence, as valid as it may be, is still a far cry from certain proof and does necessarily take for granted inductive reasoning (in the philosophical sense). I take most scientific findings for granted, but it is the case that new 'facts' constantly supersede the old ones. Science is probably the best we have, but I wouldn't assume that it is infallible. To me, this is a good thing about science, it is constantly meant to question current knowledge and not rest on its laurels. Unfortunately, what that means is that what is thought to be truth changes a lot. I don't know if there will be an endpoint when all truths are discovered and science becomes 'finished', nobody does.
A way to deal with uncertainty is through God (or other ways, be it through other kinds of spirituality, philosophy, ideology, etc.). This is not perfect either, but it can be important for some people. I grant people the ability to think what they like on these matters as long as they are not hurting anyone (and yes, I would agree that brainwashing children and missionary work is harmful) and as long as it is done so in a mostly private manner (I say mostly because I think engaging in a wanted debate about religion or appearing in public in religious dress is fine).
-
grant people the ability to think what they like on these matters as long as they are not hurting anyone and as long as it is done so in a mostly private manner
This is essentially how I feel as well.
It is accepting something without evidence or facts. That is the definition of wilful ignorance
I was under the impression the definition was refusing to acknowledge contradictory evidence. That might be the case for creationism, young earth hypothesis etc. but I don't consider belief in *some* sort of God to be wilful ignorance.
Tell me, without religion, who would look at a baby and say "jee, that's a beautiful baby. now give me a sharp object so i can hack off part of its penis?" only religion has us to do such despicable things when we're otherwise good people.
Most of my infectious disease lecturers (but I take your point).
-
How I love this site
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Iffets, do what you want to do
8)