Religious teaching in Education

[Lord J]

Edric: Sure, let's talk about Buddhism. Aside from the fact that, from what I've seen anyway, mainstream Buddhism is really more of a philosophical approach that a religion based on fear and guilt, I'll agree, it includes a system that reinforces charity. But you jump from describing Buddhism as a religion comparable to Christianity while proclaiming that Atheism does not value charity and altruism. This may be true if there was a unified "Church of Atheists" but the generalization doesn't fit because:

a. There are many, many, many philosophies of atheism.

b. Many of the philosophies of atheism actually value the human experience above all else (as I've stated before)

c. Basically just repeated point a with a slightly different emphasis: There is no unified philosophy of atheism, and certainly no central "church" or "meetinghouse"

The Unitarian Universalist church is an non-denominational church that allows members of many different faiths (including no faith) and yet engages in charitable and service-oriented practices. Granted, all atheists are not UU, not even most, probably, but if there were a united "church" for atheists, I'm fairly certain that they would give as charitably as any religious order you can name.

I'm not going to comment any further on the whole "Jesus was a Communist" thing. There are no further comments necessary considering that Marx's own comments on religion haven't been addressed. I will say, however, that my problem with every socialistic advance produced by a traditional, conservative religious group necessarily drags along with it the hurtful psychology of their order. This brings me to Eras' comment, which I will partially ignore, but I will address a few points.

How am I supposed to appreciate your work as a charitable individual when it is based on a philosophy that I feel is what others would call "evil"? Essentially, just like most conservatives I care about my family. The fact that my family is gay means that I care about their rights and freedoms, including their right to marriages that are recognized by the entire country. I also believe that homosexuality, at least in most circumstances, is a trait, not a state or "choice". Using religiosity and behavior modification to change their behavior is a perversion (haha, I get to use that term!) of the science, and truly sickening to me (far more sickening than any sexual practices). So no. I cannot accept your behavior as truly "charitable", even if it helps people in the short term, because it is linked to something that I find truly reprehensible. I would almost certainly never "volunteer" for a church organization such as yours, because it is linked to those disturbing, anti-family values.

Government assistance. The government is the only logical place for atheists to put their hopes (faith?), because the government should not be ruled by religious nonsense. Now, we all know that government doesn't work that way because religion (like a virus) creeps into everything religious people touch. Unfortunately I do not know of any atheist governments aside from Cuba (which, I think is atheistic, but I'm not sure), and I obviously don't know very much about them. I don't the numbers regarding giving by the American Atheist organization at hand (though I just emailed them).

You've already discussed your points of view regarding the importance of human reproduction. I tend to espouse a reduction in population through the use of birth control. Thankfully the US growth rate is slowing somewhat, hopefully the rest of the world will follow suit. In my opinion, the use of pets as surrogate children is economically, socially, and psychologically healthy, particularly when compared to the ridiculousness of modern parenting. So... yeah, that's about all I have to say on that matter.

[Dante]

If I might throw in a few words of argreement...

Not too long ago I came to the conclusion that religion is a catalyst for an individual's personal morality. It gives 'good' people ways to be good and 'bad' people ways to be bad. Occasionally it gives good and bad people ways to feel guilty. But what was accomplished by one philosophy could just as easily (perhaps moreso) be accomplished by another philosophy.

Put another way: does your religion make you a good person? I ask this to the various religious members of the board. Presumably you all believe, to various degrees, in things like charity, justice, fairness, altruism, truth, love, loyalty, dignity, honour, 1920's jazz and all that. So, are those things important to you because your various interpretations of religious text say it is so? Or does your belief in these things draw you towards a belief system that shares your opinion?

Looked at from another angle: if you had no religion at all, would you believe in fairness, justice, loyalty or trust? If not, why not? There is no reason not to believe in fairness, it's a perfectly reasonable moral argument without need of deific backing. But if so, then why not adopt a personal moral code without need of the various spiritual baggages that organised religion entails?

Would you be a bad person if not for your religion?

My point is that what religion gives people can be optained from other sources. People who are selfish do not magically turn generous when they convert, they just feel guilted into charity. Ignoring for a moment the moral implications of altering someone's behaviour based on guilt tripping, that guilt tripping could be accomplished equally well by, say, a belief in generosity for societal, familial or psychological reasons. And someone who genuinely does feel that generosity is better than selfishness would feel that way regardless of their religion or lack of same.

In short, I believe that the value of religion is outweighed by the harm it causes, and that same value can be obtained elsewhere.

As far as church and state goes, of the three major party leaders here in the UK, two are atheists (the leader of the opposition and the deputy Prime Minister) and the third (the PM himself) is not especially devout. I quite like it that way. But then I would.

And regarding the argument that one must be religious to be moral... I realise that as something of a moral relativist I'm not the best poster child for virtuous atheism, but I for one have never raped a choirboy. Rightness is rightness, religion is religion. Sometimes they meet. Often they don't.

Other than that, I'll just support Lord J in everything he's been saying. He's making his points far more elegantly than I am.

[Lawliet]

If I might throw in a few words of argreement...

Not too long ago I came to the conclusion that religion is a catalyst for an individual's personal morality. It gives 'good' people ways to be good and 'bad' people ways to be bad. Occasionally it gives good and bad people ways to feel guilty. But what was accomplished by one philosophy could just as easily (perhaps moreso) be accomplished by another philosophy.

Put another way: does your religion make you a good person? I ask this to the various religious members of the board. Presumably you all believe, to various degrees, in things like charity, justice, fairness, altruism, truth, love, loyalty, dignity, honour, 1920's jazz and all that. So, are those things important to you because your various interpretations of religious text say it is so? Or does your belief in these things draw you towards a belief system that shares your opinion?

Looked at from another angle: if you had no religion at all, would you believe in fairness, justice, loyalty or trust? If not, why not? There is no reason not to believe in fairness, it's a perfectly reasonable moral argument without need of deific backing. But if so, then why not adopt a personal moral code without need of the various spiritual baggages that organised religion entails?

Would you be a bad person if not for your religion?

My point is that what religion gives people can be optained from other sources. People who are selfish do not magically turn generous when they convert, they just feel guilted into charity. Ignoring for a moment the moral implications of altering someone's behaviour based on guilt tripping, that guilt tripping could be accomplished equally well by, say, a belief in generosity for societal, familial or psychological reasons. And someone who genuinely does feel that generosity is better than selfishness would feel that way regardless of their religion or lack of same.

In short, I believe that the value of religion is outweighed by the harm it causes, and that same value can be obtained elsewhere.

As far as church and state goes, of the three major party leaders here in the UK, two are atheists (the leader of the opposition and the deputy Prime Minister) and the third (the PM himself) is not especially devout. I quite like it that way. But then I would.

And regarding the argument that one must be religious to be moral... I realise that as something of a moral relativist I'm not the best poster child for virtuous atheism, but I for one have never raped a choirboy. Rightness is rightness, religion is religion. Sometimes they meet. Often they don't.

Other than that, I'll just support Lord J in everything he's been saying. He's making his points far more elegantly than I am.

As an atheist, i agree 100% with this.

And i'm gonna quote Isaac Asimov : "religion is the most powerful instrument to control people and worlds."

[Edric O]

Lord J:

But you jump from describing Buddhism as a religion comparable to Christianity while proclaiming that Atheism does not value charity and altruism. This may be true if there was a unified "Church of Atheists" but the generalization doesn't fit because:

a. There are many, many, many philosophies of atheism.

b. Many of the philosophies of atheism actually value the human experience above all else (as I've stated before)

c. Basically just repeated point a with a slightly different emphasis: There is no unified philosophy of atheism, and certainly no central "church" or "meetinghouse"

Yes, I know that there are many philosophies of atheism. That's the problem.

Because atheism has no unifying philosophy, atheism does not value charity and altruism - or anything else in particular. It is left up to each individual atheist to decide what moral code she wishes to follow. She may choose a moral code that calls for charity and altruism. Or she may not. This instability, this general state of flux, is precisely the problem with atheism. It does not push people in the right direction. It just lets them float all over the place.

You are saying "atheism is perfectly compatible with charity and altruism." I am saying "yes, but it does not strictly require them." I am not satisfied with a philosophical stance that merely allows you to be altruistic. I want one that requires you to be altruistic.

I'm not going to comment any further on the whole "Jesus was a Communist" thing. There are no further comments necessary considering that Marx's own comments on religion haven't been addressed.

I believe I have, in fact, addressed them. I said:

Certainly, most religions have been used by someone at some point to keep the poor happy by promising some real or fictional reward [this was Marx's argument]. But this is by not by any means the sole reason why religion exists. It's not even a necessary part of religion. Many religions (including Christianity) were persecuted by the ruling class when they first arose. It is absurd to claim that they were tools of the ruling class when the ruling class was doing everything in its power to wipe them out.

I will say, however, that my problem with every socialistic advance produced by a traditional, conservative religious group necessarily drags along with it the hurtful psychology of their order.

A belief in a higher power that sanctifies your actions and will reward you after death is not "hurtful psychology". It is a source of enormous strength. It allows those who fight for justice to endure public scorn, persecution, and torture. It helps you keep going when all your friends have been arrested and shot. It gives you the courage to be a martyr for the cause.

Polite, reasonable, thoughtful atheists will rarely charge forward to certain death for the greater good. Religious fanatics are always the most formidable warriors, for whatever cause they dedicate themselves to. I want more of them on my side.

How am I supposed to appreciate your work as a charitable individual when it is based on a philosophy that I feel is what others would call "evil"?

I know this was addressed to Eras, but I just want to say that we should be grateful for all acts of altruism, regardless of the motives behind them.

I cannot accept [Eras's] behavior as truly "charitable", even if it helps people in the short term, because it is linked to something that I find truly reprehensible.

Don't be stupid. We cannot afford the luxury of picking and choosing our allies in matters of charity. The world is in desperate need of people working against human suffering. We need everyone we can get.

Unfortunately I do not know of any atheist governments aside from Cuba (which, I think is atheistic, but I'm not sure), and I obviously don't know very much about them.

What exactly do you mean by "atheist government"? A government composed of atheists, or a government that incorporates atheism into its official political doctrine? If you mean the former, there are plenty of atheist governments in the world. If you mean the latter, I think the only ones are Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, China, and (in theory) North Korea.

In my opinion, the use of pets as surrogate children is economically, socially, and psychologically healthy, particularly when compared to the ridiculousness of modern parenting.

Yes, but Eras was pointing out that his neighbors care more about animals than about people in need, which is reprehensible. Not to mention that it carries the stench of elitism.

[Edric O]

Dante:

Not too long ago I came to the conclusion that religion is a catalyst for an individual's personal morality. It gives 'good' people ways to be good and 'bad' people ways to be bad. Occasionally it gives good and bad people ways to feel guilty.

I think you may be correct to a certain extent. But notice what this implies: if bad people have their beliefs "catalysed" by religion, then good people should adopt religion too, in order to be able to compete. If religion is a source of strength, we want more religion on our side and less of it on the enemy side.

Put another way: does your religion make you a good person? I ask this to the various religious members of the board.

My religion makes me want to fight for what is good. If I were not religious, I may well have similar moral views, but I would be far less willing to fight for them. I would certainly not be willing to die for them. In fact, if I were not religious, I would be quite concerned to preserve my life at any cost.

For the record, I used to be an atheist once. I converted in my teenage years.

Would you be a bad person if not for your religion?

Maybe. I would definitely be a different person if not for my religion. I can't really guess what that person might be like. He could be bad.

People who are selfish do not magically turn generous when they convert, they just feel guilted into charity.

...which is very good! The power to force bad people to do good things is one of the greatest benefits of religion. If threatening sociopaths with hell makes them model citizens, then by all means, bring on the fire and brimstone!

My point is that what religion gives people can be optained from other sources. [...] Guilt tripping could be accomplished equally well by, say, a belief in generosity for societal, familial or psychological reasons.

Equally well? Really? What on Earth gives you that idea? It seems to me that religion is obviously the most effective way to alter people's behavior. By far the most effective.

The only other belief systems that come even close to the power of religion are certain political ideologies - really just two of them: nationalism and (secular) communism. But political ideologies have serious inter-generational retention problems. Children rarely maintain the same level of devotion as their parents. In a couple of generations the flame is gone.

[ErasOmnius]

Guilt, the most powerful force in the universe. The Book says that it is the way the our conscience communicates with the Holy Spirit, who is God. Guilt always has been, and always will be a powerful motivator -- and why should we be ashamed to admit that? Why is 'feeling guilt' bad? Feeling guilt helps give us parameters over our lives.

Guilt as delivered from The Book to humans, has been a powerful motivator throughout history, and has been a good thing.

It is partly guilt that drives me to answer the alarm clock at 11 pm, to go to a Shelter to help people who are addicts. Guilt that if a kind minister had not shared with me 25 years ago, the Good News from The Book; that the poor fellow stumbling in drunk in the front door could be me. But it is mainly out of love for my fellow human that motivates me. If The New Covenant Book says that the Son is my older brother, and that the Father is my father, why shouldn't I spread that message around. Do you know what it's like to tell someone whom society hates and scorns, that God loves them; and to show that love -- here is a bed, meal, and free health screening.

Is it a fantasy? I don't believe so, and after examining all of the evidence I believe it to be 100% true. If it is a fantasy, then honestly, it is the right kind of fantasy. This Christianity that has helped millions over the past 2000 years. Have kings and queens used a horribly corrupted version of Christianity to enslave, kill, and conquer? Yes. But that does not absolve any of us.

[Dante]

Eracist, you're babbling. Come back when you have something vaguely sensible to say.

Edric Edric Edric... I do believe we're in one of those "the reasoning is sound, but we've reached different conclusions" situations again. Funny how that tends to happen.

I think you may be correct to a certain extent. But notice what this implies: if bad people have their beliefs "catalysed" by religion, then good people should adopt religion too, in order to be able to compete. If religion is a source of strength, we want more religion on our side and less of it on the enemy side.

Fighting fanaticism with fanaticism seems to me like a very messy way to win a war. Fanatics throw themselves onto spears. They crash aircraft into buildings. And they don't tend to "live to fight another day," as it were.

Besides which, I still don't believe that inner will and strength is entirely the province of religion. People don't just dedicate themselves to "god" these days, they dedicate themselves to freedom of speech, environmentalism, equal rights, political development, physical things and physical causes. Some of them might adhere to a particular religion, but I don't see many (in this part of the world, anyway) who specifically refer to their religion as a driving force in their lives. The David Attenboroughs and Peter Tatchells of the world make do just fine without.

And after all, it's not like there aren't any atheistic fanatics.

...which is very good! The power to force bad people to do good things is one of the greatest benefits of religion. If threatening sociopaths with hell makes them model citizens, then by all means, bring on the fire and brimstone!

Aren't you just endorsing dictatorship there? It's always struck me as a little odd that you should fight it so vociferously in the physical realm while endorsing spiritual despotism, but I think this is more a physical matter than philosophical. Personally I would prefer to avoid thought police, especially those so insidious that they get you to do their work for them.

Equally well? Really? What on Earth gives you that idea? It seems to me that religion is obviously the most effective way to alter people's behavior. By far the most effective.

Belief alters behaviour. Belief in Jesus requires - to some extent - a belief in forgiveness. But belief in forgiveness does not depend on a belief in Jesus, or indeed any philosophy besides itself. If one believes in forgiveness so strongly as to alter one's actions then surely it is because one is convinced of the moral rightness of forgiveness, not the say-so of a book? If that is so then there is no need for the book, and if it is not then one could substitute any book as the reader clearly lacks any capacity for indepedent thought.

Political ideology is not the only source of strong philosophy. People die for their countries, yes. Nationalism. They also die for their families. For their rulers. For their principles. For their property. People can be motivated by any number of factors (greed, love, fear, hate, spite, pride...), it is these factors that are important, not the packaging in which they are delivered.

Or so I believe. Perhaps it's semantic, but I find it very easy to cut traits (forgiveness, strength, honesty, love) away from the historical or fictional figures from whom we are supposed to learn them.

Because atheism has no unifying philosophy, atheism does not value charity and altruism - or anything else in particular. It is left up to each individual atheist to decide what moral code she wishes to follow. She may choose a moral code that calls for charity and altruism. Or she may not. This instability, this general state of flux, is precisely the problem with atheism. It does not push people in the right direction. It just lets them float all over the place.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to add that I prefer to avoid dictatorship, where possible. Politically, morally, personally, socially, spiritually, whatever. Dictators are bad. But I'm sure you're aware of that.

A belief in a higher power that sanctifies your actions and will reward you after death is not "hurtful psychology". It is a source of enormous strength. It allows those who fight for justice to endure public scorn, persecution, and torture. It helps you keep going when all your friends have been arrested and shot. It gives you the courage to be a martyr for the cause.

This is true. And if the cause is "burn the [minority]" it remains true. I see this as a flaw in your reasoning. I suspect you'll disagree.

[ErasOmnius]

The Unitarian Universalist church is an non-denominational church that allows members of many different faiths (including no faith) and yet engages in charitable and service-oriented practices. Granted, all atheists are not UU, not even most, probably, but if there were a united "church" for atheists, I'm fairly certain that they would give as charitably as any religious order you can name.

How am I supposed to appreciate your work as a charitable individual when it is based on a philosophy that I feel is what others would call "evil"? Essentially, just like most conservatives I care about my family. The fact that my family is gay means that I care about their rights and freedoms, including their right to marriages that are recognized by the entire country. I also believe that homosexuality, at least in most circumstances, is a trait, not a state or "choice". Using religiosity and behavior modification to change their behavior is a perversion (haha, I get to use that term!) of the science, and truly sickening to me (far more sickening than any sexual practices). So no. I cannot accept your behavior as truly "charitable", even if it helps people in the short term, because it is linked to something that I find truly reprehensible. I would almost certainly never "volunteer" for a church organization such as yours, because it is linked to those disturbing, anti-family values.

Government assistance. The government is the only logical place for atheists to put their hopes (faith?), because the government should not be ruled by religious nonsense. Now, we all know that government doesn't work that way because religion (like a virus) creeps into everything religious people touch. Unfortunately I do not know of any atheist governments aside from Cuba (which, I think is atheistic, but I'm not sure), and I obviously don't know very much about them. I don't the numbers regarding giving by the American Atheist organization at hand (though I just emailed them).

You've already discussed your points of view regarding the importance of human reproduction. I tend to espouse a reduction in population through the use of birth control. Thankfully the US growth rate is slowing somewhat, hopefully the rest of the world will follow suit. In my opinion, the use of pets as surrogate children is economically, socially, and psychologically healthy, particularly when compared to the ridiculousness of modern parenting. So... yeah, that's about all I have to say on that matter.

Well obviously I will have to tread lightly because of the great anti-religious bias that exists here in D2k.com.

Looked up UU church guidelines from the link you provided. Not too much there to help the needy and homeless. It is almost a stretch to use the word 'church'. It would probably be more accurate to say 'spiritually-oriented meeting'.

Homosexuality is a trait? That doesn't exist in science, only in propaganda.

Ridiculousness of modern parenting...That's usually what men say who don't want 'real' responsibility. The responsibility of continuing society, mankind, and civilization in general.

Lord J, you were going to write the American Atheist Scoiety for numbers. I can tell you that atheism is probably the fastest growing sub-culture there is in the West. Why not? Free sex [men or women], get drunk, get high, abort your kids! There is no wrong or right. Neo-paganism is probably right behind.

There's a reason why Islam is given such deference in The West. Because they know what they want, and they're not afraid to say it. When they look at The West they see weakness and stupidity. We cannot even reproduce our culture to maintain our particular culture. One third of our children are aborted at surgical centers, and it is celebrated as 'choice'.

But the urban planners and the politicians know the rising tide, and where the money if flowing. Because of their vast oil and natural gas resources, and their expanding population, the power is flowing to the Middle East. Our leaders defer to them, and their real net asset value is increasing over The West. That's why when the Queen or Nancy Pelosi, or anyone female leader goes to the Middle East -- they cover their heads. Because they know that Islam is reproducing, expanding, and replacing...the culture of the The West.

[SandChigger]

It seems to me that religion is obviously the most effective way to alter people's behavior. By far the most effective.

LOL. Edric as Bene Gesserit! :D

I honestly don't know if you're serious about the sh...stuff you're posting here, or just taking the piss. I'll assume you're deadly serious. And will titter quietly to myself in response.

(Sorry about the font color; it's your affectation, I can't be bothered since I'm quoting manually.)

Because they know that Islam is reproducing' date=' expanding, and replacing...the culture of the The West.[/quote']

Oh, GAWD, quick! Save the culture and the language!

Ah, peeks into this forum are always so rewarding.

[ErasOmnius]

Oh, GAWD, quick! Save the culture and the language!

Ah, peeks into this forum are always so rewarding.

I never said it was necessarily a good or a bad thing. It just 'is'.

[SandChigger]

I never said it was necessarily a good or a bad thing. It just 'is'.

Gheir-qail ma fakkarta, qulta-hu.

Not saying what you thought, you said it.

[ErasOmnius]

You know me SandChig. Filled with love for all of mankind. Sometimes misunderstood.

[Lord J]

Wow, this has really taken off in the past few days. Pardon me if I miss something.

First: Dante, Lawliet and SandChigger; thanks for the support. I don't know that I would call my posts particularly "elegant", but they are certainly important for understanding my worldview.

Edric: It is true that atheism does not typically require charity. I suspect some definitions do, but in general, you are correct. However, the way religions require charity is through coercion: do this or you will suffer in hell. Do this or Jesus won't love you anymore. Do this or you'll be asked to leave the church. My problem with the perspective (and this is directed at Eras as well, because use of guilt is a form of coercion) is in science. In the process of my study of psychology, I have come upon a set of problems with using coercion to modify behavior. In laboratory settings, use of aversive stimuli (such as shock) has resulted in aggressive behavior, persistence (i.e, the organism engages in the punished behavior when the "feared" stimulus isn't present) and learned helplessness (depression). See this book, starting at the end of page 168 for an in-depth summary. The book chapter I posted includes a summary of Murray Sidman's book, Coercion and Its Fallout in which he describes the effects of these problems with using aversive techniques in human society. To make a long story short: use of coercion creates more problems than it solves.

Yes, Eras, I did email the American Atheist organization, this is their reply:

Atheists do give to charity, we just don't feel the need to brag about it like the religious people do. They brag about it because they are seeking reward from their invisible friend in the sky. Atheists do it because it is the right thing to do.

If you want a good example, go to Kiva.Org and check out the donations by groups. Atheists and agnostics lead every other group in giving.

Why do atheists give? Because they want to. Because they feel rewarded by the giving process, or altruism, not because it saves them from hell, but because like a parent on Christmas Day, it feels good to help someone.

Edric, you describe how religion gives you strength to "fight for the greater good", but would your fight be necessary if people realized that this is all there is? That there is no need for the belief in some afterlife because the beautiful, mundane, and terrifying are already here. I wonder how many people are content to allow their capitalist overlords to run roughshod over them because of the imaginary reward waiting for them in the sky? Remember, God rewards the meek and poor for being... well... meek and poor! You mention martyrs as people that are important. I see martyrs as masochists shaped by a system that rewards truth and suffering. Why suffer for the "truth" when you can lie, and in lying, subvert the exploiting system from the inside. Have you ever seen Schindler's List?

Besides, it's interesting to think about for religion can drive one to fight versus how rationalism can create some of the most powerful weapons that actually win wars. Wars aren't won on feelings, they're won by technology. The Kalashnikov assault rifle is an excellent example: Mikhail Kalashnikov developed the rifle that is probably the most used and respected assault rifle in the world, not for religious reasons, but because of nationalism. Nowhere in my reading about him do I see a single reference to religion, but I do see pride and respect for one of the most effective rifles of it's time. Robert Oppenheimer was a Jew growing up, but I suspect science had more to do with his work on atomic weaponry. So, perhaps theists fight harder, but I would argue that atheists fight smarter.

Speaking of Nazis, I feel that supporting the work of someone with Eras's worldview is similar to saying that Hitler's persecution of the Jews was alright because his policies stabilized the German economy.

Oh yes, and atheist governments: I feel an atheist government would be one which is entirely unaffected by religious posturing, and therefore would need to exist in a (predominantly) atheistic country. Of course, I really suspect that a scientific government would be preferable; something like Walden Two or Plato's philosopher kings (I think that was Plato ;) )

[athanasios]

It is not coercion or fear of hell. We help/give because this the right thing to do for us and for human kind.

Neither do Christians like to suffer and become martyrs. But in many cases it is unavoidable, you lie or not (Who said to you Christians do not lie to subvert the exploiting system from the inside?). For example they torture you to get the names/addresses of your fellow Christians. Will you betray them? You will lie but who will believe you?

[ErasOmnius]

Eracist...

I thought we were all going to 'get along'.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, before we get too far off base talking about everything pertaining to life and the universe. I think it is up to the parents to teach their children religion. Even though I don't think it is up to the government to teach religion; the government should be allowed to give grants to organizations that perform worthwhile duties. Some of these organizations may include schooling, shelters, and job training.

Faith based initiatives.

[SandChigger]

I think it far more important that parents teach their children proper manners and how to behave in public, to teach them that doing certain things is wrong. Filling little children's heads with a lot of nonsense about Invisible Friends is just another form of child abuse.

[Lawliet]

I think it far more important that parents teach their children proper manners and how to behave in public, to teach them that doing certain things is wrong. Filling little children's heads with a lot of nonsense about Invisible Friends is just another form of child abuse.

[Lord J]

I think it far more important to properly train parents before they are allowed to run the lives of the next generation.

I'm almost enough of a Skinnerian to believe that biological parents should have no more to do with their children than the rest of society, but there are biological limits.

Just finished looking over my post in the old "Religion" thread. I've changed my viewpoints (probably more of a maturation process than anything else), and I don't really remember thinking that way. It's interesting, though, and it's giving me something to think about. I should go through that thread at some point and read the whole thing. I bet there are some real... nuggets in there. Nuggets of all types, I am sure.

Nugget is a funny word.

Nugget.

[ErasOmnius]

I think it far more important to properly train parents before they are allowed to run the lives of the next generation.

I'm almost enough of a Skinnerian to believe that biological parents should have no more to do with their children than the rest of society, but there are biological limits.

Too funny.

[Lord J]

I'm making my way through the first part of the Religion thread; kind of slowly, but mostly so that I can actually understand what people have written. There are a lot of typos.

I think the biggest difference between the "Religion" debates and the debates in this thread and more recent ones is that we are somewhat learned adults debating things we actually know and have thought about to some degree, whereas the folks in the Religion thread were primarily teenagers. Even Edric has... refined his rhetoric somewhat.

Eras: So you're basically laughing at my concern regarding parents' use of various worthless, and sometimes harmless, behavior control strategies? It's interesting to me that you have to be licensed (or at least background checked) to purchased a handgun, you must be licensed to drive an automobile, most managerial positions at least require some college or equivalent experience, but to be a parent you just have to be randy.

[Dante]

I thought we were all going to 'get along'.

You thought wrong. Aren't you used to that by now?

And Fed2k doesn't have an anti-religion bias, it has an anti-whackjob-with-a-harmful-agenda bias. Or so I like to believe.

Hmm. You know Lord J, I did once go back and read some of the old religion threads. It's been a while though. Sometimes I think it's better forgotten. Having said that, dug up anything interesting?

[Lord J]

Goodness..... Seems to be getting a little off-topic here. Anyway. People' date=' how can you prove God doesn't exist? I do not believe in religion. I believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. The one who went on the cross and died for me, that I wouldn't go to Hell. I don't get what you people are saying about religion, it's just beyond my realm of thought. I've dealt with demons, and overcome them, but you people are something else entirely...... [/quote']

I don't know if this person is still around, but their posts are priceless; earlier in the thread they used the Bible Code as evidence for the Christian God!

Anyway, the first ten pages are kinda tame. There is a lot of teen angsty stuff and a few guests commented on Wicca. There's this whole fallout with theists (Edric and Alia the Knife) comparing atheists to Lucifer. One of the biggest (and probably the most interesting) themes I noticed is theist fear of nonexistence after death. Several actually commented that hell should be preferable to non-existence. On the ninth and tenth pages, Mahdi and Nema began a conversation on omniscience and free will. It is interesting to me that people talk about free will and consider its nonexistence, but people don't really debate what it would be like to not have free will.

[athanasios]

... It's interesting to me that you have to be licensed (or at least background checked) to purchased a handgun, you must be licensed to drive an automobile, most managerial positions at least require some college or equivalent experience, but to be a parent you just have to be randy.

To me the Orwellic Country you live in has probably damaged some of your neurons. I was already driving for one year prior to getting a license and the time and money I wasted for it didn't make me a better driver. And my uncle has taught me well how to handle a gun. Next the World Dictators will demand a license to be able to pee.

Do you have a license to post to forums?:P

[Lord J]

Nah, just sufficient education regarding reading and writing English.

Of course licensing doesn't make you better or worse at what you do, it just means that other people can easily ascertain your competency.

[Edric O]

Lord Johnsonius:

Several actually commented that hell should be preferable to non-existence.

Funny you should mention that. Yes, hell is indeed infinitely better than non-existence, and I was just preparing to write about this exact subject again.

See, you've been speaking of hell as if it were a punishment. That's certainly true when you compare it to heaven. But compared to what atheists expect to get after death - compared to non-existence - hell is a gift.

The fact that the souls of unrepentant sinners go to hell, instead of being destroyed, is an act of great mercy. Don't you understand? We will live forever. All of us. Some will get pleasant eternal lives and some will get unpleasant eternal lives, but we will all live forever. The knowledge that hell is the worst that could happen to me is a source of enormous optimism. I do not fear hell. I fear non-existence.

This is my view of Christianity vs. atheism on the issue of the afterlife: Atheism effectively says that even the kindest, most loving, most altruistic people will be condemned to a fate worse than hell.

It is not the case, as many atheists seem to imply, that Christianity offers you reward or punishment while atheism offers you some neutral middle ground. No. Christianity offers you reward or punishment, while atheism offers you the worst fate imaginable, which you cannot escape no matter what you do. Atheism should produce learned helplessness more than any other belief system. If it doesn't, that is only because atheists do not seem to comprehend the full horror of what they believe.

Let me try to describe that horror for you. We live in a world of unimaginable evil. People die by the thousands every day in disease-ridden shanty towns where they must share their food with rats and drink water polluted with human excrement. Mothers watch helplessly as their children are eaten alive by parasitic worms and swarms of flies come to suck moisture from their eyes. Boys are kidnapped, beaten into submission and turned into disposable killing machines, their bullet-filled corpses left to rot where they fall. Girls as young as 8 or 10 are sold to human traffickers who rape and beat them on a daily basis and sell their bodies like meat to the highest bidder. Among the adults, the lucky ones get to live 12 hours a day in dark, putrid sweatshops just to keep their families alive. The unlucky ones lose an arm or a leg in the machines they operate, and if they don't bleed to death they must live the rest of their lives as an unwanted burden on their loved ones. The ones who try to rebel are slaughtered by the armies of capitalism and dumped into mass graves.

Even in the most ultra-optimistic scenario imaginable, it will still take at least another half-century of blood and tears before we can end just the most barbaric of these atrocities - never mind universal peace and happiness.

And you want to believe that there is no afterlife, no justice for victim and perpetrator, no solace for grieving mothers, no reunion of lovers separated by death, no relief from torment for the slaves and the child prostitutes and the sweatshop workers? I do not see how you can believe that and not scream in despair at the festering cesspool of disease, violence and death that is the human condition. Without God, there is only darkness, and all hope is in vain.

Stare long and hard into the abyss, and then you will understand the need for faith.