237 replies to this topic

[Ben Simon]

I'm still working on my son though who at age 10 will still argue with his Christian friends that they should be atheists (so even though he is being raised UU like his sisters, he does not tolerate other people's beliefs he feels are "silly" or "dumb"--I'm still working on him...)

I think your son is a perfect example of how dispassionate teaching of religion will expose it as the prima facie bullshit that it is. Even a 10 year old could see through it. There is nothing inherently good about tolerance. One cannot respond tolerantly to intolerant religious doctrine, and no state authority is needed for this to happen. Scandinavians are pretty notorious in their ridicule of idiotic religious buffoonery. A girl on my trip to Scandinavia talked to an Afghani refugee in Norway and he said that most people think his religion is silly. Telling this story brought the girl to tears.... but it brought a smile on my face.

Perhaps the wussy tolerance approach will help in the institution of the dispassionate teaching of religion, but the ultimate goal is to make religion something that no self-respecting person would believe in.

I shuddered at this.

[Shannon Vyff]

You all know that I expected a response like that, right? You can't discount peoples' beliefs it is the basis of secular humanist empathy, and at the heart of every religion in some way. I'm hoping my son will be more advanced in his empathy by the time he is grown

[EmbraceUnity]

It is obvious that some religions are tolerant, though their memetic effectiveness is diminished if this is the case. That is why intolerant religions are so successful.

I did use strong language to make my point, but have received no rebuttal. Is tolerance, in the sense you mean, really a secular humanist value? Secular humanism values human beings and rationality. Humanists tolerate people, not ideas. If an idea is completely irrational, a humanist will call it out as such. In a debate about history or science, one can rather harshly ridicule someone's ideas as long as nobody is attacking the person. The same should be true when it comes to theology, but unfortunately American culture forces people to pander to religion and even simple rebuttals are considered taboo. I think pushing the boundaries a bit is healthy.

Surely if that Afghani I mentioned had believed in the Tooth Fairy he would have been looked upon as silly as well, and rightly so. Why should religion be any different? Because it is more emotionally charged? There are all sorts of non-religious beliefs that people become emotionally charged about... just look around this politics forum. I still don't think that is a reason to refrain from critique, rebuttal, and the important tools of satire and ridicule

Edited by progressive, 11 February 2009 - 10:46 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

You scorn tolerance, progressive, but building bridges will do more to advance our cause than hatred. You describe "intolerant religious doctrine", but this is an oversimplification. Within Catholicism, as an example, there are many tolerant and progressively minded people who could be open to transhumanism. It could even be argued that Catholicism sanctions transhumanism, or at least the life extension component. If God is omniscient and omnipresent, it can be argued that his hand played a role in life extension technology. With the focus of Catholicism being the sanctity of life and God's plan, the rejection of life extension technologies could be viewed as the mortal sin of suicide.

Hate will get us nowhere. I'd much prefer to show how our philosophy is compatible with faith than dwell on how it's different. I have a number of wonderful religious friends, and they're not insignificant people just because they believe some man lives in the clouds.

I have friends that believe in all sorts of ridiculous nonsense, religious or otherwise. I have libertopian friends. That doesn't stop me from calling out their ideas as bullshit whenever it is needed. I know it is hard to read into the emotional state of a person via an internet forum, but be assured that I was attacking beliefs and not people. Surely part of this whole apprehension at the idea of harsh criticism of religion has to do with this cultural taboo that needs to be broken.

Edited by progressive, 11 February 2009 - 11:12 PM.

[Shannon Vyff]

I don't say to children that believe in the tooth fairy, that they are silly. Nor would I to an adult, I encounter adults who believe in all sorts of weird pagan gods and such--I appreciate them for who they are, I don't discount their beliefs. I personally know the tooth fairy is real, because I've been the tooth fairy on several occasions

[abolitionist]

AB : yes Athiesm means that we should murder Jews - what was I thinking? please god save me...

look, our genetic design creates our selfishness not athiesm

belief in something does not change our genetic design or solve the world's problems, never has and never will

humans have been murdering each other and sacrificing each other since the dawn of time, Athiesm is simply the lack of subscribing to a belief system

a belief system doesn't make one ethical

I know this wasn't directed at me, but it's worthy of special attention.

You are indulging in the same kind of thinking and argument that a lot of religious people use to disassociate themselves from the miserable actions of those who (however loosely) share their faith. When a Christian for example says 'humans have been murdering each other from the dawn of time' so as to avoid accusations that religion begets violence, or a Muslim sarcastically remarks that 'yes the Koran means that we should fly planes into buildings', they are technically making a sound point. However, they are also demonstrating their naivety. Our worldview informs how we behave. This cannot be avoided. Contrary to what you said, yes, belief systems can make us ethical. They can also encourage us to kill, persecute others, wage war, etcetera. Whatever a person believes, be they christian, jew, republican, democrat, whatever... this will have behavioral consequences, depending on the specifics of what those beliefs entail. And though I know it is typical for atheists to talk about how 'atheism is not a belief system', and while I can even appreciate why, the same is most certainly true of atheism. Atheism, materialism, and yes, Darwinism all have their place alongside other 'isms' as having contributed historically to violence. Quips like yours above are an attempt to shrug this off. ...It can't be done. The very weight of history is against you. Like with religion, this is not to say that atheism is, in and of itself, a bad thing, but culturally it has its history. Just as every religious person should be aware of that fact as concerns their own beliefs, so should every atheist.

that's right it wasn't directed at you, it was a play on the assertion that it was a response to

athiesm doesn't have any contribution to violence, it's simply a statement of disbelief that's all

just like guns don't kill people

[abolitionist]

You scorn tolerance, progressive, but building bridges will do more to advance our cause than hatred. You describe "intolerant religious doctrine", but this is an oversimplification. Within Catholicism, as an example, there are many tolerant and progressively minded people who could be open to transhumanism. It could even be argued that Catholicism sanctions transhumanism, or at least the life extension component. If God is omniscient and omnipresent, it can be argued that his hand played a role in life extension technology. With the focus of Catholicism being the sanctity of life and God's plan, the rejection of life extension technologies could be viewed as the mortal sin of suicide.

Hate will get us nowhere. I'd much prefer to show how our philosophy is compatible with faith than dwell on how it's different. I have a number of wonderful religious friends, and they're not insignificant people just because they believe some man lives in the clouds.

I have friends that believe in all sorts of ridiculous nonsense, religious or otherwise. I have libertopian friends. That doesn't stop me from calling out their ideas as bullshit whenever it is needed. I know it is hard to read into the emotional state of a person via an internet forum, but be assured that I was attacking beliefs and not people. Surely part of this whole apprehension at the idea of harsh criticism of religion has to do with this cultural taboo that needs to be broken.

amen, it should be socially acceptable to debate beliefs, faith should be viewed as a weakness and not a strength IMO.

[abolitionist]

I think people can make rational decisions long before eighteen. But (before I derail the thread and start going on about the age discrimination in our sociecty) I see your point. If adults start indoctrinating them at a young enough age, those children may never be able to think rationally as adults. And I certainly wish more parents would let their children grow and decide on their own. However, I think using the force law is going too far.

AB : I agree development is different for individuals. How else besides creating laws can you prevent parents from forcing their children to believe and worship as they do?

Think of it from a religious parent's perspective. Suppose you believe that God is the ultimate truth and joy in the universe. Wouldn't you want to share that 'knowledge' with your children? Would you want your child to stay up nights worrying about death when you 'knew' there was a heaven? What if you thought that child would burn in fire for all eternity because you didn't teach them? Following such a law would be a guilt-ridden nightmare for religious parents.

AB : tough shit, what if I believe that satan is coming to drink your blood unless you give me $50,000? who cares what those idiots believe - they can suffer the irrationality of their own beliefs. I have no sympathy for that.

If you think children would be better off growing up rational, it would be better to go through the schools and maybe TV programs. Right now they generally have a message like, "Listen to your parents and teachers because you're just a child. Only an adult can know what's best for you." Instead, society should be honest with young people and tell them that their feelings and opinions matter. If your parents' beliefs don't make sense to you, it's okay to disagree.

AB : it's not my place to say that they would be better off, however it is my place to say that we should protect their right to intellectual freedom.

I think you're making a bit of a leap by saying that teaching children religion inherently violates their intellectual freedom. Children aren't born wanting to be rational atheists anymore than they are born with a desire to be religious. As long as the child doesn't actively desire a different mindset from their parents', I don't see how religious teachings are any more destructive than the myriad of other arbitrary influences that affect the minds of children and adults.

the point is this (and I'm getting tired of repeating it so that you religious folks can make your arguments);

1. children do not have the capacity to reason until they are developed
2. they respond to social pressure
3. adults force children to accept their religious beliefs (sometimes)
4. we must protect children against the impulse of parents to control the beliefs of their children

like I have also said repeatedly;

this doesn't mean that children cannot learn about religious ideas in an environment where there is no pressure to believe

Edited by abolitionist, 12 February 2009 - 05:59 AM.

[abolitionist]

I don't know why we spend so much of our emotional energy on hating religion and especially on hating the religious. Perhaps my confusion comes from the fact that I'm not an atheist. Honestly, I find atheism to be as illogical and narrow-focused as religion, I just get along with atheists better because we have the same secular values. Lack of proof in an after life/higher power is not proof that an after life/higher power doesn't exist.

You scorn tolerance, progressive, but building bridges will do more to advance our cause than hatred. You describe "intolerant religious doctrine", but this is an oversimplification. Within Catholicism, as an example, there are many tolerant and progressively minded people who could be open to transhumanism. It could even be argued that Catholicism sanctions transhumanism, or at least the life extension component. If God is omniscient and omnipresent, it can be argued that his hand played a role in life extension technology. With the focus of Catholicism being the sanctity of life and God's plan, the rejection of life extension technologies could be viewed as the mortal sin of suicide.

Hate will get us nowhere. I'd much prefer to show how our philosophy is compatible with faith than dwell on how it's different. I have a number of wonderful religious friends, and they're not insignificant people just because they believe some man lives in the clouds.

faith is antithetical with science and science is needed to develop the means to achieve immortality and fundamental improvement of the human condition

religion in many instances becomes an opiate of the masses whereby they are taught that they should just accept what 'god has given them' and that biotechnology is evil

ask any preacher of any religion if they think we should use science to ;

1. achieve immortality
2. eliminate involuntary suffering

and see what they say

there may be very few like Mike Latorra (a zen priest) who support the use of science to accomplish these ends, but then again he doesn't consider himself a believer in Buddhist doctrine

if religion did not get in the way, then there would be no resentment

(I can't help but think that if all those Christians/Muslims/Buddhists, etc.. all supported Transhumanism how much better the quality of our lives could be - think about how much more scientific progress we could make)

I wouldn't mind joining a religion that focused on the belief that we are here to eliminate aging and suffering, but I can't think of any, can you?

They espouse different goals;

heaven
nirvana
virgins in the afterlife

etc...

and these are at odds with the goals of Transhumanism/Abolitionism

I tried pitching to literally every Buddhist center in America - that science could further the values of Buddhism and that they should support biotechnology aimed at eliminating suffering

guess what? they believe that only meditation can work and that biotechnology would become a hindrance towards enlightenment

do you understand?

Edited by abolitionist, 12 February 2009 - 06:13 AM.

[abolitionist]

How about creating our own religion?

Let's call it Transhumanism

the god of Transhumanism "Infinite Bliss" wants us to use our scientific abilities to eliminate our aging, involuntary suffering, and improve our lives without any preset limits to how much better we can make them

Infinite Bliss is asexual and always compassionate, ethical, and just, however he/she is not all powerful and can only inspire us to achieve these ends

However if we do die he/she will take us into the light where we are free from suffering and live forever in the afterlife until we can become reincarnated

Whenever we are suffering intensely and without direction, we can close our eyes and see infinite bliss shining down upon us - and he/she will guide us in the ways of Transhumanism

sound good?

Edited by abolitionist, 12 February 2009 - 06:22 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

I don't say to children that believe in the tooth fairy, that they are silly. Nor would I to an adult, I encounter adults who believe in all sorts of weird pagan gods and such--I appreciate them for who they are, I don't discount their beliefs. I personally know the tooth fairy is real, because I've been the tooth fairy on several occasions

Clearly you do discount your pagan friends' beliefs. If you didn't, you'd believe the same exact thing. You don't, and therefore you must find it silly. You even went so far as to term it "weird." The only difference is that you are paying it more respect than you are paying my current arguments. Why are my arguments ok to refute, but not theirs? Because my feelings won't get hurt? Instead of debating should I whine about how you are disrespecting my beliefs?

The problem is beliefs have impacts on reality, and upholding rationality as much as possible will help us avoid, but not eliminate, self-destructive behavior. It is true that there is no urgent need to use state coercion or even private coercion to "deprogram" someone just for a belief itself if it has no discernable harmful effects. That was the point of the movie Harvey. Such urgency should only be taken when fundamentalists resort to violence or self-destruction. However, for the non-fundamentalists, I am confident that over the long term it is better to staunchly uphold rationality so that peoples' decision making processes are guided by reason as much as possible. Countless problems can be traced to simply bad reasoning, and religion facilitates this.

Edited by progressive, 12 February 2009 - 08:06 AM.

[Ben Simon]

the point is this (and I'm getting tired of repeating it so that you religious folks can make your arguments);

1. children do not have the capacity to reason until they are developed
2. they respond to social pressure
3. adults force children to accept their religious beliefs (sometimes)
4. we must protect children against the impulse of parents to control the beliefs of their children

like I have also said repeatedly;

this doesn't mean that children cannot learn about religious ideas in an environment where there is no pressure to believe

Your poll question: "Should we pass laws to prevent parents from forcing their children to participate in religious services and be exposed involuntarily to religious doctrines?"

Will you be changing the poll to sit better with your above stated aspirations? The two are quite different.

As for the 'religious folks' comment... who says I'm religious? I may be an atheist for all you know. I just disagree with many of the things you are saying.

Like this:

athiesm doesn't have any contribution to violence, it's simply a statement of disbelief that's all

just like guns don't kill people

Two ignorant statements. Though I agree with the first half of the following:

amen, it should be socially acceptable to debate beliefs, faith should be viewed as a weakness and not a strength IMO.

Edited by ben, 12 February 2009 - 02:01 PM.

[cyborgdreamer]

I think people can make rational decisions long before eighteen. But (before I derail the thread and start going on about the age discrimination in our sociecty) I see your point. If adults start indoctrinating them at a young enough age, those children may never be able to think rationally as adults. And I certainly wish more parents would let their children grow and decide on their own. However, I think using the force law is going too far.

AB : I agree development is different for individuals. How else besides creating laws can you prevent parents from forcing their children to believe and worship as they do?

Think of it from a religious parent's perspective. Suppose you believe that God is the ultimate truth and joy in the universe. Wouldn't you want to share that 'knowledge' with your children? Would you want your child to stay up nights worrying about death when you 'knew' there was a heaven? What if you thought that child would burn in fire for all eternity because you didn't teach them? Following such a law would be a guilt-ridden nightmare for religious parents.

AB : tough shit, what if I believe that satan is coming to drink your blood unless you give me $50,000? who cares what those idiots believe - they can suffer the irrationality of their own beliefs. I have no sympathy for that.

If you think children would be better off growing up rational, it would be better to go through the schools and maybe TV programs. Right now they generally have a message like, "Listen to your parents and teachers because you're just a child. Only an adult can know what's best for you." Instead, society should be honest with young people and tell them that their feelings and opinions matter. If your parents' beliefs don't make sense to you, it's okay to disagree.

AB : it's not my place to say that they would be better off, however it is my place to say that we should protect their right to intellectual freedom.

I think you're making a bit of a leap by saying that teaching children religion inherently violates their intellectual freedom. Children aren't born wanting to be rational atheists anymore than they are born with a desire to be religious. As long as the child doesn't actively desire a different mindset from their parents', I don't see how religious teachings are any more destructive than the myriad of other arbitrary influences that affect the minds of children and adults.

the point is this (and I'm getting tired of repeating it so that you religious folks can make your arguments);

1. children do not have the capacity to reason until they are developed
2. they respond to social pressure
3. adults force children to accept their religious beliefs (sometimes)
4. we must protect children against the impulse of parents to control the beliefs of their children

like I have also said repeatedly;

this doesn't mean that children cannot learn about religious ideas in an environment where there is no pressure to believe

The capacity to reason doesn't emerge from a vacuum. It is partially based on the child's life experiences including social influences. Therefore, it makes no sense to assert that nothing should influence a child until they have the capacity to reason. Now, if parents make a child feel obligated to believe something that conflicts with their incholate identity, society should show the child that they have other options. However, my point is that the pressure to believe is only a bad thing if it bothers the child.

PS. I wish you wouldn't include me as one of "you religious folks", as I am atheist too.

[Ben Simon]

faith is antithetical with science

Rubbish.

religion in many instances becomes an opiate of the masses whereby they are taught that they should just accept what 'god has given them' and that biotechnology is evil

Wheras Marx was all sunshine and lollipops.

ask any preacher of any religion if they think we should use science to ;

1. achieve immortality
2. eliminate involuntary suffering

and see what they say

I imagine they'd say all kinds of diverse and interesting things. Why do you pigeonhole all religious people as though they would all be of one mind on such issues?

I wouldn't mind joining a religion that focused on the belief that we are here to eliminate aging and suffering, but I can't think of any, can you?

Wait. Really? You would join a religion that had those goals? That's kinda inconsistent with all you've been saying. Is that really what this is all about? You think everyone should be a transhumanist? Dude, some people have other priorities. Chill.

They espouse different goals;

heaven
nirvana
virgins in the afterlife

etc...

Very silly characterisation of religion, relying on stereotypes yet again. Did you know, for example, many Christians do not profess a belief in a literal heaven? True story.

...You know how silly it sounds when some creationist says that all atheists think their grandfather was a chimpanzee? Well... yeah, it sounds just as silly when atheists try to speak for the religious and say dumb things on their behalf. Sorry.

I tried pitching to literally every Buddhist center in America - that science could further the values of Buddhism and that they should support biotechnology aimed at eliminating suffering

guess what? they believe that only meditation can work and that biotechnology would become a hindrance towards enlightenment

Maybe you need to work on your pitch.

Edited by ben, 12 February 2009 - 02:03 PM.

[Blutarsky]

AB : is information not measurable? would you like to rethink this...?

Absolutely not. Some information is measurable and some is not. Feelings and emotions are not measurable yet would you exclude them from the defintion of "information?"

AB : would you like to provide evidence to the contrary?

Certainly. I used to own a BMW 3 series. My subjective experience with my car led me to believe that BMWs are better performing vehicles than the Saab that I now own. I now have a belief that is based upon subjective information.

AB : The word meme is used to symbolize something that is measurable, the word god is not. No you're not in my boat.

Not according to Dawkins. Every idea can supposedly be represented by a meme. Unfortunately, some ideas are not measurable, therefore some memes are not measurable. A meme is no more testable than the objects it attempts to label. If the underlying idea behind the meme cannot be validly disproved then the meme cannot be disproven, and therefore it is not a valid scientific proof. In essence you've changed the label on the bottle without regard to the contents. To people with common sense this appears to be an exercise in futility.

AB : yes Athiesm means that we should murder Jews - what was I thinking? please god save me...

look, our genetic design creates our selfishness not athiesm

belief in something does not change our genetic design or solve the world's problems, never has and never will

humans have been murdering each other and sacrificing each other since the dawn of time, Athiesm is simply the lack of subscribing to a belief system

a belief system doesn't make one ethical

Ben has already dealt with these comments, but I will just add that many more people have died at the hands of atheists than those that have died at the hands of the misguided religious. Atheism, provides the logical framework for an autonomous, selfish and domineering will that cooperates to drive out morality which leads to such behavior. This is the enshrouding darkness that Nietzche wrote about.

Please note that I am saying that not all atheists are evil or cannot live moral lives. I believe William Lane Craig stated it best when he said:

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet's limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

Somebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style. But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful then one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence. Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, "There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality 'pays off' in his social life or makes him 'feel good.' There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him."

Edited by Blutarsky, 12 February 2009 - 07:41 PM.

[Blutarsky]

ask any preacher of any religion if they think we should use science to ;

1. achieve immortality
2. eliminate involuntary suffering

Again with the tired old canard of the anti-consonance of science and religion...

What makes you think that generalizing and stereotyping religious people gives you any credibility?

I know many people of faith, inlcuding myself, that do not have a problem with science improving/extending life or eliminating suffering of any kind. And such beliefs are completely compatible with my faith.

[abolitionist]

ask any preacher of any religion if they think we should use science to ;

1. achieve immortality
2. eliminate involuntary suffering

Again with the tired old canard of the anti-consonance of science and religion...

What makes you think that generalizing and stereotyping religious people gives you any credibility?

I know many people of faith, inlcuding myself, that do not have a problem with science improving/extending life or eliminating suffering of any kind. And such beliefs are completely compatible with my faith.

the generalizing and stereotypes are accurate, of course their are exceptions - but I'm not aware of any

what faith in doctrine do you have that is not in conflict with the use of science to eliminate suffering and death? (it's certainly not a doctrine from one of the major religions or any that I've ever heard about)

just because their is a black swan doesn't mean that most swans are not white

[abolitionist]

AB : is information not measurable? would you like to rethink this...?

Absolutely not. Some information is measurable and some is not. Feelings and emotions are not measurable yet would you exclude them from the defintion of "information?"

AB : yes, feelings and emotions are measurable you've heard of neuroscience haven't you?

AB : would you like to provide evidence to the contrary?

Certainly. I used to own a BMW 3 series. My subjective experience with my car led me to believe that BMWs are better performing vehicles than the Saab that I now own. I now have a belief that is based upon subjective information.

AB : what criteria do you use to determine that one car is better than another? would a newborn child without pre-programmed knowledge come to the same conclusions? Religious experiences are given meaning by existing belief systems.

AB : The word meme is used to symbolize something that is measurable, the word god is not. No you're not in my boat.

Not according to Dawkins. Every idea can supposedly be represented by a meme. Unfortunately, some ideas are not measurable, therefore some memes are not measurable. A meme is no more testable than the objects it attempts to label. If the underlying idea behind the meme cannot be validly disproved then the meme cannot be disproven, and therefore it is not a valid scientific proof. In essence you've changed the label on the bottle without regard to the contents. To people with common sense this appears to be an exercise in futility.

AB : ok, show me how you can measure god... we can certainly measure memes because they consist of ideas that are observable

AB : yes Athiesm means that we should murder Jews - what was I thinking? please god save me...

look, our genetic design creates our selfishness not athiesm

belief in something does not change our genetic design or solve the world's problems, never has and never will

humans have been murdering each other and sacrificing each other since the dawn of time, Athiesm is simply the lack of subscribing to a belief system

a belief system doesn't make one ethical

Ben has already dealt with these comments, but I will just add that many more people have died at the hands of atheists than those that have died at the hands of the misguided religious. Atheism, provides the logical framework for an autonomous, selfish and domineering will that cooperates to drive out morality which leads to such behavior. This is the enshrouding darkness that Nietzche wrote about.

AB : no, our genes provide that framework - you have some data to back up the idea that Athiests have killed more people that misguided religious folks?

look at the countries where Athiesm is most prominent, they have the least crime and strongest communities.

Please note that I am saying that not all atheists are evil or cannot live moral lives. I believe William Lane Craig stated it best when he said:

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet's limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

Somebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style. But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful then one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence. Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, "There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality 'pays off' in his social life or makes him 'feel good.' There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him."

AB : dude, listen carefully, the only tenet of athiesm is the rejection of religious doctrine (specifically the belief in god) - it does not determine that humans are worthless. Religion doesn't change the inherent human drives to seek pleasure, avoid pain, and avoid death - it simply creates lies that encourage specific behaviors which are not determined by ethics. Religion is not synonymous with morality.

Edited by abolitionist, 13 February 2009 - 06:03 AM.

[abolitionist]

the point is this (and I'm getting tired of repeating it so that you religious folks can make your arguments);

1. children do not have the capacity to reason until they are developed
2. they respond to social pressure
3. adults force children to accept their religious beliefs (sometimes)
4. we must protect children against the impulse of parents to control the beliefs of their children

like I have also said repeatedly;

this doesn't mean that children cannot learn about religious ideas in an environment where there is no pressure to believe

Your poll question: "Should we pass laws to prevent parents from forcing their children to participate in religious services and be exposed involuntarily to religious doctrines?"

Will you be changing the poll to sit better with your above stated aspirations? The two are quite different.

As for the 'religious folks' comment... who says I'm religious? I may be an atheist for all you know. I just disagree with many of the things you are saying.

Like this:

athiesm doesn't have any contribution to violence, it's simply a statement of disbelief that's all

just like guns don't kill people

Two ignorant statements. Though I agree with the first half of the following:

amen, it should be socially acceptable to debate beliefs, faith should be viewed as a weakness and not a strength IMO.

Hey Ben, provide something useful besides 'rubbish' or 'ignorant' it certainly doesn't support your opinion and makes you look like you are unwilling to debate

No I wouldn't change the poll question - the poll was to stir debate, not create a public policy, and it has worked hasn't it...

Edited by abolitionist, 13 February 2009 - 05:53 AM.

[abolitionist]

faith is antithetical with science

Rubbish.

religion in many instances becomes an opiate of the masses whereby they are taught that they should just accept what 'god has given them' and that biotechnology is evil

Wheras Marx was all sunshine and lollipops.

ask any preacher of any religion if they think we should use science to ;

1. achieve immortality
2. eliminate involuntary suffering

and see what they say

I imagine they'd say all kinds of diverse and interesting things. Why do you pigeonhole all religious people as though they would all be of one mind on such issues?

I wouldn't mind joining a religion that focused on the belief that we are here to eliminate aging and suffering, but I can't think of any, can you?

Wait. Really? You would join a religion that had those goals? That's kinda inconsistent with all you've been saying. Is that really what this is all about? You think everyone should be a transhumanist? Dude, some people have other priorities. Chill.

They espouse different goals;

heaven
nirvana
virgins in the afterlife

etc...

Very silly characterisation of religion, relying on stereotypes yet again. Did you know, for example, many Christians do not profess a belief in a literal heaven? True story.

...You know how silly it sounds when some creationist says that all atheists think their grandfather was a chimpanzee? Well... yeah, it sounds just as silly when atheists try to speak for the religious and say dumb things on their behalf. Sorry.

I tried pitching to literally every Buddhist center in America - that science could further the values of Buddhism and that they should support biotechnology aimed at eliminating suffering

guess what? they believe that only meditation can work and that biotechnology would become a hindrance towards enlightenment

Maybe you need to work on your pitch.

1. Buddhist doctrine declares that the goal is nirvana and that this can only be achieved by following the eightfold path and critically meditation - do you understand this?

2. faith is an act of suspending critical inquiry (of believing without evidence) - science requires evidence and skepticism - science is against faith in doctrine that is not open for debate - understand?

3. Marx has nothing to do with this, he simply made an apt quote that I quoted him doesn't mean I'm supporting him per say - clear?

4. Why don't you go ask those who profess religious doctrine of all the major religions if they support the use of biotechnology to eliminate involuntary suffering and death instead of imagining

5. I was making examples of the end goals of religious doctrine and they are accurate and representative of the majority of official religious doctrine

I really think you're not open to understanding due to some faith in your opinion about the compatibility between religious doctrine and science - and you certainly haven't provided any evidence to support this theory of yours

[abolitionist]

The capacity to reason doesn't emerge from a vacuum. It is partially based on the child's life experiences including social influences. Therefore, it makes no sense to assert that nothing should influence a child until they have the capacity to reason. Now, if parents make a child feel obligated to believe something that conflicts with their incholate identity, society should show the child that they have other options. However, my point is that the pressure to believe is only a bad thing if it bothers the child.

PS. I wish you wouldn't include me as one of "you religious folks", as I am atheist too.

ok, sorry if I confused you as a non athiest

that's an interesting point that makes for useful debate, yes we are definately influencing them against their will

what if the belief that 1 + 1 = 2 bothers a child? some don't like learning language and mathematics but it's good for them and society and empowers them as individuals

I agree that in the case of being forced to participate in religious practices or to profess belief or be exposed to pressure to believe in doctrine - that a child should definately be protected if they say that they are bothered

however, they should also be protected even if they are not bothered

for example, a child may enjoy learning to be a suicide bomber or to have faith in doctrine to the extent that they are afraid and unwilling to examine other theories

we should also consider the threat to society and the intellectual empowerment of the child

by intellectual empowerment i mean the capacity to reason and utilize the scientific method - religious faith in doctrine impedes the open debate of scientific knowledge, philosophy and ethics

effectively leaving children less empowered and less able to have intellectual freedom

Edited by abolitionist, 13 February 2009 - 06:17 AM.

[cyborgdreamer]

The capacity to reason doesn't emerge from a vacuum. It is partially based on the child's life experiences including social influences. Therefore, it makes no sense to assert that nothing should influence a child until they have the capacity to reason. Now, if parents make a child feel obligated to believe something that conflicts with their incholate identity, society should show the child that they have other options. However, my point is that the pressure to believe is only a bad thing if it bothers the child.

PS. I wish you wouldn't include me as one of "you religious folks", as I am atheist too.

ok, sorry if I confused you as a non athiest

that's an interesting point that makes for useful debate, yes we are definately influencing them against their will

what if the belief that 1 + 1 = 2 bothers a child? some don't like learning language and mathematics but it's good for them and society and empowers them as individuals

That depends on the child. Since children are, unfortunately, less able to reason than adults, we do have make sure that children who dislike math and language don't sabotage their futures. However, I think that our current system of mandatory schooling is too rigid. A child should have some say in how, when and even if they are educated. If a child hates learning that much, they should be able to sit down with a reasonable adult and design an alternative life plan.

I agree that in the case of being forced to participate in religious practices or to profess belief or be exposed to pressure to believe in doctrine - that a child should definately be protected if they say that they are bothered

however, they should also be protected even if they are not bothered

for example, a child may enjoy learning to be a suicide bomber or to have faith in doctrine to the extent that they are afraid and unwilling to examine other theories

Society should definitely intervene if adults are training their children to be violent or self-destructive. However, I don't think strong faith and the unwillingness to reason is necessarily harmful. If a person wants to believe that praying over their meals wills earn the favor of some supernatural being, that's fine with me.

we should also consider the threat to society and the intellectual empowerment of the child

by intellectual empowerment i mean the capacity to reason and utilize the scientific method - religious faith in doctrine impedes the open debate of scientific knowledge, philosophy and ethics

effectively leaving children less empowered and less able to have intellectual freedom

Science and reason are important for our society as a whole. We need doctors and scientists to help people and improve our world. Therefore, society should encourage rationality and intellectual empowerment. However, despite the fact that I value rationality highly in myself, I don't think that irrational mindsets are inherently negative for the individual. Some people are perfectly happy to have faith in place of reason. Thus, as long as we have enough scientific minds to keep society moving forward, I don't see a problem with a few parents raising religious children.

[abolitionist]

Society should definitely intervene if adults are training their children to be violent or self-destructive. However, I don't think strong faith and the unwillingness to reason is necessarily harmful. If a person wants to believe that praying over their meals wills earn the favor of some supernatural being, that's fine with me.

Science and reason are important for our society as a whole. We need doctors and scientists to help people and improve our world. Therefore, society should encourage rationality and intellectual empowerment. However, despite the fact that I value rationality highly in myself, I don't think that irrational mindsets are inherently negative for the individual. Some people are perfectly happy to have faith in place of reason. Thus, as long as we have enough scientific minds to keep society moving forward, I don't see a problem with a few parents raising religious children.

There's no evidence that having religious faith in doctrine makes one happier and alot of evidence to show that it stiffles advancement and creates divisions and competitions between competing belief systems whereby both sides are unwilling to examine their beliefs and fight to defend them.

Religion doesn't do any good, for anything. Spirituality however is necessary with our present design, but doctrine and rigid beliefs are not - they are poison for humanity and the individual.

Both ethical directives - the greater good utilitarian and the ontological (rights-based) methods of determining right and wrong compel us to eliminate religious doctrine in favor of skepticism and science.

Strong faith and unwillingness to reason harms the individual and society.

It's not okay to allow for a few children to be abused as long as we have enough kids that will become scientists.

[sUper GeNius]

Religion doesn't do any good, for anything. Spirituality however is necessary with our present design, but doctrine and rigid beliefs are not - they are poison for humanity and the individual.

Please provide some typical examples of rigid beliefs and also, the better beliefs of "spirituality." How's this, I'll start. There is one god. That the rigid belief. Now your turn, provide one of the un-rigid, flexible beliefs, the ones that are good.

[abolitionist]

Religion doesn't do any good, for anything. Spirituality however is necessary with our present design, but doctrine and rigid beliefs are not - they are poison for humanity and the individual.

Please provide some typical examples of rigid beliefs and also, the better beliefs of "spirituality." How's this, I'll start. There is one god. That the rigid belief. Now your turn, provide one of the un-rigid, flexible beliefs, the ones that are good.

I believe that the scientific method works best when we refrain from having faith in theories and instead remain open and skeptical

that's my good belief.

Another good belief for humanity to have : I deserve lots of free money deposited in my checking account.

[cyborgdreamer]

Society should definitely intervene if adults are training their children to be violent or self-destructive. However, I don't think strong faith and the unwillingness to reason is necessarily harmful. If a person wants to believe that praying over their meals wills earn the favor of some supernatural being, that's fine with me.

Science and reason are important for our society as a whole. We need doctors and scientists to help people and improve our world. Therefore, society should encourage rationality and intellectual empowerment. However, despite the fact that I value rationality highly in myself, I don't think that irrational mindsets are inherently negative for the individual. Some people are perfectly happy to have faith in place of reason. Thus, as long as we have enough scientific minds to keep society moving forward, I don't see a problem with a few parents raising religious children.

There's no evidence that having religious faith in doctrine makes one happier and alot of evidence to show that it stiffles advancement and creates divisions and competitions between competing belief systems whereby both sides are unwilling to examine their beliefs and fight to defend them.

Religion doesn't do any good, for anything. Spirituality however is necessary with our present design, but doctrine and rigid beliefs are not - they are poison for humanity and the individual.

Both ethical directives - the greater good utilitarian and the ontological (rights-based) methods of determining right and wrong compel us to eliminate religious doctrine in favor of skepticism and science.

Strong faith and unwillingness to reason harms the individual and society.

It's not okay to allow for a few children to be abused as long as we have enough kids that will become scientists.

I'm not sure how you are differentiating doctrine from spirituallity, but I've read several studies that show that religion correlates with happiness. (Though unfortunately, I don't remember where I found them.) This makes sense to me; believing that there isn't an afterlife makes me pretty darn angry. Of course, I'd rather be angry than irrational, but I can understand why others would prefer the alternative.

[abolitionist]

I'm not sure how you are differentiating doctrine from spirituallity, but I've read several studies that show that religion correlates with happiness. (Though unfortunately, I don't remember where I found them.) This makes sense to me; believing that there isn't an afterlife makes me pretty darn angry. Of course, I'd rather be angry than irrational, but I can understand why others would prefer the alternative.

There was a study published by the AP a while ago showing that those who reported being happiest also reported being strongly religious, what they have since clarified is that it is the environmental variables like support and acceptance that increases sense of well being and not having faith in a doctrine.

Edited by abolitionist, 16 February 2009 - 03:55 PM.

[Shannon Vyff]

I don't think honest religion should be illegal, this was our church sermon yesterday: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1159481

The studies I've seen that correlate religion to happiness point to the social networks, I think the friendships and community give that boost in immune system and happiness I'm ok with other doctrine than what I consider "honest religion" but I think that all religions should still be taught. Yesterday in my RE class I had a birthday celebration for Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. We did time travel, I had a 4 foot color chart of the history of Earth--we even went outside on a hike for dinosaur bones. I make class fun and we learn, about true things--or what others believe to be true. The most important thing is to teach children to be rational, to question and know how to evaluate what they are learning.

[bacopa]

At our UU, here in Marblehead, we had a sermon on Charles Darwin's anniversary of his birth as well as his seminal "Origins of the Species." It's great how UU'rs think

[Shannon Vyff]

Yeah, this reverend talked at our church today--it was very cool to take my 12 year old to http://thankgodforevolution.com/ Religion can incorporate scientific truth.