237 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

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.

It's good to find ways to funnel dogmatic people into scientific thinking

but you are still telling them that god is creating evolution - do they find it comforting to imagine a sadistic all powerful being?

Transhumanism, Abolitionism, and Immortalism lack community and spirituality in their movements

[Luna]

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.

It's good to find ways to funnel dogmatic people into scientific thinking

but you are still telling them that god is creating evolution - do they find it comforting to imagine a sadistic all powerful being?

Transhumanism, Abolitionism, and Immortalism lack community and spirituality in their movements

Why does it matter to you so much what other people believe in?

So they believe in god, at least they blend it with what you think to be more rational thinking.

Are they at least good people?
Do those people act against health improvement research?

Some do, some don't! but it's not religious OR atheist.
There are atheist who are against stem cells, genetics and all the good things we are into as well!

So when a person speaks about rational people with certain believes, just stop!
Not everyone has to believe in the same thing, it's enough to have good personality and at least some rationality and support good things like health research.

And not everyone has to support health research either! some people should (and do) support efficient energy, some might support helping the poor.
The world would be boring if we would all be the same anyways.. colors can add a lot of brightness to the world, as long as they don't prevent good things

[Moonbeam]

Edited by Moonbeam, 23 February 2009 - 12:25 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

Religion can create purpose for a lot of people, and organisations like christian aid do a lot for society helping people. I am involved in church and the priests I know are homosexual themselves and thinks abortion should be legal etc, I know there is a different situation in the united states where there are some crazy priests denying evolution and thinking abortion should be illegal,(those priests should be put in jail!).Priests have a lot to contribute to society,for example you can tell a priest anything and he isn't allowed to say anything to other people, which a psychiatrist can do under specific circumstances.

So for me religion is a good thing and the church is certainly contributing a lot to society, they are helping a lot of old people and people with drug problems etc...

Society should never punish people for using drugs, instead they should help them (not by force), force is always wrong.

Edited by VictorBjoerk, 23 February 2009 - 07:45 AM.

[abolitionist]

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.

It's good to find ways to funnel dogmatic people into scientific thinking

but you are still telling them that god is creating evolution - do they find it comforting to imagine a sadistic all powerful being?

Transhumanism, Abolitionism, and Immortalism lack community and spirituality in their movements

Why does it matter to you so much what other people believe in?

So they believe in god, at least they blend it with what you think to be more rational thinking.

Are they at least good people?
Do those people act against health improvement research?

Some do, some don't! but it's not religious OR atheist.
There are atheist who are against stem cells, genetics and all the good things we are into as well!

So when a person speaks about rational people with certain believes, just stop!
Not everyone has to believe in the same thing, it's enough to have good personality and at least some rationality and support good things like health research.

And not everyone has to support health research either! some people should (and do) support efficient energy, some might support helping the poor.
The world would be boring if we would all be the same anyways.. colors can add a lot of brightness to the world, as long as they don't prevent good things

there is no religion that advocates immortality

there is no religion that advocates eliminating suffering with science

they all prevent progress

boring? so you'd like to create conflict and inhibit progress for entertainment? (assuming it's necessary for that purpose)

there is no religion that does not prevent good things - religion by it's very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning

[abolitionist]

Religion can create purpose for a lot of people, and organisations like christian aid do a lot for society helping people. I am involved in church and the priests I know are homosexual themselves and thinks abortion should be legal etc, I know there is a different situation in the united states where there are some crazy priests denying evolution and thinking abortion should be illegal,(those priests should be put in jail!).Priests have a lot to contribute to society,for example you can tell a priest anything and he isn't allowed to say anything to other people, which a psychiatrist can do under specific circumstances.

So for me religion is a good thing and the church is certainly contributing a lot to society, they are helping a lot of old people and people with drug problems etc...

Society should never punish people for using drugs, instead they should help them (not by force), force is always wrong.

sometimes force is needed to prevent individuals from infringing upon the rights of others

all the beneficial aspects found in practice through religious activities can be had without religion

[Ben Simon]

there is no religion that does not prevent good things - religion by it's very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning

I consider this to be a fanatical statement.

[s123]

I’m against an overregulation by the government. But even in my ideal political system there would be laws for example to protect people against murders and to protect children. A law that protects children against religion could be a good part of a set of basic rules for the protection of children. So, I voted yes.

[abolitionist]

there is no religion that does not prevent good things - religion by it's very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning

I consider this to be a fanatical statement.

well if you can prove it to be inaccurate then I might begin to consider if it is fanatical

[VictorBjoerk]

protection against religion for children is not liberal.

The church is a good alternative for children, instead of e.g taking drugs and running around shoplifting candy bars in supermarkets they can learn to embrace god....In church all people are OK regardless of how much money they make and whether they fail their grades or not.

In my local church we have some buddhists that like to sit there because after all humans are all the same...

Edited by VictorBjoerk, 23 February 2009 - 09:59 PM.

[Infernity]

I am very much against religion enforcement, but you can't tell parents not to educate, teach or explain their children what they truly believe in, with their entire heart. It's a belief, you can't ban it, it's taking away the freedom of thought! I would happily vote "Yes" if I were a senseless tyrant. It's not reasonable concerning the fact that the very most of the world is religious and we are th freaks in it who in the past got killed for doubting god. Now you want families to pay for teaching their children their tradition and belief? It's not even something in a level you can tell when there is a case and when there is not.

This is the world we have. It sucks. But this solution should get you killed. Why would any of the religious ones out there agree to that? They would smash us by forcing the law upon us all or something. Think of it physically, the electrone goes to the proton, not the opposite.

[Ben Simon]

there is no religion that does not prevent good things - religion by it's very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning

I consider this to be a fanatical statement.

well if you can prove it to be inaccurate then I might begin to consider if it is fanatical

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and you are the one making an extraordinary claim. 'Religion by its very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning'? ...You start making claims like that, and the burden of proof falls squarely on you.

In fact, that you would say 'if you can prove it to be inaccurate then I might begin to consider if it is fanatical' in the context of slamming religion seems, at best, ironic. It only adds credibility to my original assertion.

[abolitionist]

protection against religion for children is not liberal.

The church is a good alternative for children, instead of e.g taking drugs and running around shoplifting candy bars in supermarkets they can learn to embrace god....In church all people are OK regardless of how much money they make and whether they fail their grades or not.

In my local church we have some buddhists that like to sit there because after all humans are all the same...

who cares about the word liberal, the rights of children to believe as they wish and not have religion forced upon them is freedom

just because you don't go to church doesn't mean that you're going to shoplift candy bars, there are many many alternatives

religion also has it's hierarchies

you can sit anywhere - it's the quest for social acceptance and comfort which can be had in many ways

Edited by abolitionist, 24 February 2009 - 04:38 AM.

[abolitionist]

there is no religion that does not prevent good things - religion by it's very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning

I consider this to be a fanatical statement.

well if you can prove it to be inaccurate then I might begin to consider if it is fanatical

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and you are the one making an extraordinary claim. 'Religion by its very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning'? ...You start making claims like that, and the burden of proof falls squarely on you.

In fact, that you would say 'if you can prove it to be inaccurate then I might begin to consider if it is fanatical' in the context of slamming religion seems, at best, ironic. It only adds credibility to my original assertion.

Ben, your game is up.

Faith is widely recognized to be an act of believing in something without evidence and against competing theories - that is the antithesis of science

grow up man, your debate tactics are like a child saying "i'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you"... it's ridiculous

Edited by abolitionist, 24 February 2009 - 04:37 AM.

[abolitionist]

I am very much against religion enforcement, but you can't tell parents not to educate, teach or explain their children what they truly believe in, with their entire heart. It's a belief, you can't ban it, it's taking away the freedom of thought! I would happily vote "Yes" if I were a senseless tyrant. It's not reasonable concerning the fact that the very most of the world is religious and we are th freaks in it who in the past got killed for doubting god. Now you want families to pay for teaching their children their tradition and belief? It's not even something in a level you can tell when there is a case and when there is not.

This is the world we have. It sucks. But this solution should get you killed. Why would any of the religious ones out there agree to that? They would smash us by forcing the law upon us all or something. Think of it physically, the electrone goes to the proton, not the opposite.

yes, you can ban it, just like the Chinese have done historically

just because parents hold onto irrational beliefs doesn't give them the right to force them on others

now allowing a child to be exposed to religious ideals in a non-coercive environment is something different - but parents always have their own selfish agendas

freedom of thought is not forcing religion on children - you've got it ass backwards

just because many are religious doesn't mean that they need to force their religion on others, even their own children

it's grow up time for the human race and being complicit towards religion is not going to wake up humanity

[Ben Simon]

there is no religion that does not prevent good things - religion by it's very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning

I consider this to be a fanatical statement.

well if you can prove it to be inaccurate then I might begin to consider if it is fanatical

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and you are the one making an extraordinary claim. 'Religion by its very nature is the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning'? ...You start making claims like that, and the burden of proof falls squarely on you.

In fact, that you would say 'if you can prove it to be inaccurate then I might begin to consider if it is fanatical' in the context of slamming religion seems, at best, ironic. It only adds credibility to my original assertion.

Ben, your game is up.

Faith is widely recognized to be an act of believing in something without evidence and against competing theories - that is the antithesis of science

grow up man, your debate tactics are like a child saying "i'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you"... it's ridiculous

Um, no, my game is not up. The fact that faith is not scientific (I disagree with your definition of faith, but you're right at least in as much as its not scientific) does not by any means at all 'prove' that it is the antithesis of science, or that religion (remember thats what you said - not faith) is 'by its very nature the prevention of truth and the scientific method of learning'.

Lots of things are valid without being scientific. The fact of something being not scientific does not negate its value, nor does it mean it is 'by its very nature' the prevention of science. If you can prove that statement, or even argue for it convincingly then I will be very impressed. Do a good enough job and you should get a book deal out of it, cos its a big, big claim you're making.

Again, there is an irony to the fact that you would criticise something you consider to be 'belief without evidence and against competing theories', because thats exactly what you're doing here. Your 'belief' that the nature of religion is to stifle learning and prevent science' is not based on evidence, yet you believe it with a fiery zeal. It is clear that you are writing from a position of obvious ignorance about religion. I have absolutely no problem critiquing religion, and in fact do it myself often. But I do have a problem with obvious displays of hostility, ignorance and yes, fanaticism. I take exception to those things, wherever I find them. Go learn about what religion actually is, or you are doomed to irrelevance in your critique of it.

Edited by ben, 24 February 2009 - 05:16 AM.

[Infernity]

abolitionist I'm on your side, I think it is horrible forcing your child into it, but they believe they do right, and you- can't prove them wrong. I think that of the more important lessons for my children would be of skeptikism's importance. Other disagree with us. sadly there aren't many of us in the world. A minor is under the castity of his parents. Moreover, some people are so extremely strict with their belief that it would be the end of the world for them. (On second thought, the actual end of the world is likely to happen by religion).

Some religious people feed on it, it is their hope, their answers which they can't live without, their comfort and social frame. They need it...

I know some wonderful religious people, I appreciate their way eventhough I disagree with that. Telling them they can't educate their children the way they believe is like telling you that you can't teach them your ways, which are of course correct. Theirs are just as correct as yours in your eyes. It doesn't hurt us directly, that's why there can't be a law like that. You also forget that most of the world is religious, and so are most of the leaders. And for as long as there's democracy, you can't win this (I keep saying I should be the queen of the universe *ahm* )

freedom of thought is not forcing religion on children - you've got it ass backwards

True, but those children MAY think what they want, the fact they are not educated that way doesn't mean they can't change, ask your fellow imminst members. Some were born to a religious family, andlook at them today. Of course, chances are lower, but still.
Now, turning something into a LAW, takes away the freedom of acting against it.

Edited by Infernity, 24 February 2009 - 04:21 PM.
Wrong reference

[Ben Simon]

yes, you can ban it, just like the Chinese have done historically

Wow. I just saw this. Yes, lets model our society on mid twentieth century Communist China. What a wonderful idea.

[VictorBjoerk]

What is wrong with religious people?(not fundamentalists)

You may think they are "wrong" and you "know the truth that there is no god" but it is still important in a society to let people practice their religion and let children participate in church activities if they want to. Otherwise it is like communist China. I think it's a bit odd when comparing the general values of freedom in other aspects etc on this forum that there are more people that want to make religion illegal than allowing kids to go to church and I don't believe in a society where a lot of things are illegal.

What is wrong with religious activities for children, and yes I still believe in free abortion, evolution, that we should focus resources to combat aging. I think aging/death is unnecessary and should be defeated by biotechnology. A lot of religious people are very nice people. Christian people should not be taken for extreme fundamentalists like those in united states denying evolution and being against abortion and not allowing homosexual people to marry etc.

[Ben Simon]

Christian people should not be taken for extreme fundamentalists like those in united states denying evolution and being against abortion and not allowing homosexual people to marry etc.

Just because I can't help myself, I don't think being against abortion qualifies somebody as fundamentalist. I have serious concerns about abortion which have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with secular morals. One of the most egregious pieces of spin achieved in recent memory has been that of the pro choice movement convincing many in the secular world that the abortion issue is a closed book, and that anyone who disagrees must be a frothing at the mouth religious extremist. It's a deeply complicated subject that requires complicated answers that neither the outspoken pro life movement, or the outspoken pro choice movement seem prepared to answer.

[valkyrie_ice]

I voted yes, because I do believe teaching religion to children is inherently brainwashing. It can be nothing else.

I know this from personal experience. I was raised in a southern baptist family, in which the majority of my family was either SB or salvation army, and I was forced to attend church not only on sundays, but Wednesdays as well. I was put into the Evangelical Christian School from 2nd grade up to eight, at which point I was moved to texas and a public school for the first time.

My entire childhood was about religion. There was no day of my young life where religion, the bible, and hellfire and damnation were not forced upon me. In fact I to this day can probably win any bible trivia contest you care to toss my way.

Up until I went to public school, I had no concept of life without daily preaching, daily bible studies, and daily attempts to WIN MY SOUL FOR GOD. I accepted Christ repeatedly, terrified that the last time i had not been "sincere" enough. And I was always a problem child, I once went to the office every day for a year to be beaten by a wooden paddle because I refused to do my homework.

And then I spent a year in a school where the bible wasn't a required textbook.

And I got taught logic, and scientific reasoning.

when I got put back into ECS in 9th grade, I was oh well, until I read a little book given me by my science teacher, which attempted to claim the flood was caused by a layer of water that had existed in the atmosphere, which fell to earth at gods command.

Water, just hovering in midair, in a solid mass.

by the time the year was over I told my parents either put me in public school, or I would get myself kicked out of ECS.

And even so, I was still pretty much a firm christian, and beleived in the bible and everything else.

Until I was like 19, and took this cult busting class in the christian ministry college run by my church. And they went down a list of brainwashing techniques used by cults... AND I REALIZED EVERY SINGLE ITEM ON THE LIST HAD BEEN USED ON ME BY BOTH MY CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL I HAD GONE TOO.

It's not the parents who can't be trusted. It's everyone who has any part in the organization of religion at all. It's all indoctrination. At least if we protect the kids, fewer people will suffer through the same terrified childhood I did.

[Ben Simon]

I voted yes, because I do believe teaching religion to children is inherently brainwashing. It can be nothing else.

Of course it can.

I know this from personal experience. I was raised in a southern baptist family, in which the majority of my family was either SB or salvation army, and I was forced to attend church not only on sundays, but Wednesdays as well. I was put into the Evangelical Christian School from 2nd grade up to eight, at which point I was moved to texas and a public school for the first time.

My entire childhood was about religion. There was no day of my young life where religion, the bible, and hellfire and damnation were not forced upon me.

So... what is it that you know from personal experience exactly? I don't doubt you had a very negative experience of religion growing up, but can you explain to me how your personal experience supports the claim that religious education is inherently a form of brainwashing and in fact cannot be anything else? Because from the example as you describe it it seems like the problem wasn't religion, but the disproportionately assertive (even hostile?) way in which it was taught. It would be equally wrong to teach mathematics in this way, but that doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to teach children mathematics. Your original claim is far weightier than the evidence you provide is able to support.

Edited by ben, 14 April 2009 - 06:20 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Until I was like 19, and took this cult busting class in the christian ministry college run by my church. And they went down a list of brainwashing techniques used by cults... AND I REALIZED EVERY SINGLE ITEM ON THE LIST HAD BEEN USED ON ME BY BOTH MY CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL I HAD GONE TOO.


I take it you missed this line? If the exact same brainwashing techniques are used by accepted religion, as well as fringe religion, what makes one acceptable and the other not?

Brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing.

[Ben Simon]

Until I was like 19, and took this cult busting class in the christian ministry college run by my church. And they went down a list of brainwashing techniques used by cults... AND I REALIZED EVERY SINGLE ITEM ON THE LIST HAD BEEN USED ON ME BY BOTH MY CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL I HAD GONE TOO.


I take it you missed this line? If the exact same brainwashing techniques are used by accepted religion, as well as fringe religion, what makes one acceptable and the other not?

Brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing.

No, I didn't miss that point. But I do seem to have missed how it or any of what you have said thus far indicates that one person's individual negative experience is indicative of anything more than exactly that - their experience. Casting the net wider, I am more than happy to accept that it's not just you, and that a lot of religious abuse and indoctrination takes place. What you have failed to indicate is how this fact in any way supports the claim that religious education is inately a kind of brainwashing. As you said, brainwashing is brainwashing, so let's not go diluting the meaning of the word by applying it to things which dont qualify. People can be brainwashed to believe all sorts of ideas. And while it's very true that they shouldn't be, that doesn't mean any of those ideas are inately bad in and of themselves. It's the methodology which is at fault.

If the result of your liberation from fundamentalist Christianity is that you now percieve all religious education to be an abuse then you have merely traded in one rigid, illogical ideology for another. Given your negative experiences I can sympathise up to a point, but I encourage you to take one further step and break the cycle entirely, because the church you grew up in still holds a power over your thinking that, if it's as bad as you say, it simply ought not be entitled to.

Edited by ben, 14 April 2009 - 09:57 AM.

[abolitionist]

What is wrong with religious people?(not fundamentalists)

You may think they are "wrong" and you "know the truth that there is no god" but it is still important in a society to let people practice their religion and let children participate in church activities if they want to. Otherwise it is like communist China. I think it's a bit odd when comparing the general values of freedom in other aspects etc on this forum that there are more people that want to make religion illegal than allowing kids to go to church and I don't believe in a society where a lot of things are illegal.

What is wrong with religious activities for children, and yes I still believe in free abortion, evolution, that we should focus resources to combat aging. I think aging/death is unnecessary and should be defeated by biotechnology. A lot of religious people are very nice people. Christian people should not be taken for extreme fundamentalists like those in united states denying evolution and being against abortion and not allowing homosexual people to marry etc.

the issue is religion being forced upon children, you don't need to extropolate to infer that I'm saying there is something wrong with religious people

although I think there is... but that's another thread

teaching children the philosophical questions and all sides of the debate is very different from making them go to sunday school

[abolitionist]

yes, you can ban it, just like the Chinese have done historically

Wow. I just saw this. Yes, lets model our society on mid twentieth century Communist China. What a wonderful idea.

yeah not really

we'd need to start slowly and ban the extreme examples of forced religion classifying it as abuse

and go from there

[abolitionist]

Until I was like 19, and took this cult busting class in the christian ministry college run by my church. And they went down a list of brainwashing techniques used by cults... AND I REALIZED EVERY SINGLE ITEM ON THE LIST HAD BEEN USED ON ME BY BOTH MY CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL I HAD GONE TOO.


I take it you missed this line? If the exact same brainwashing techniques are used by accepted religion, as well as fringe religion, what makes one acceptable and the other not?

Brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing.

religion itself is brainwashing through manipulative means - that's how I understand your message

glad to see you rebounded in the opposite direction Valkyrie 8)

[Ben Simon]

yes, you can ban it, just like the Chinese have done historically

Wow. I just saw this. Yes, lets model our society on mid twentieth century Communist China. What a wonderful idea.

yeah not really

we'd need to start slowly and ban the extreme examples of forced religion classifying it as abuse

and go from there

Shudder.

Statements such as these make any further discussion seem inevitably useless I'm afraid. What more can I say but that I hope I never find myself living in the kind of totalitarian system you are endorsing, and simply move on?

[abolitionist]

Ok Ben, since you like religion being forced on people

you have to go to church every sunday now and listen to fire and brimstone scare tactics

feel better?

[Ben Simon]

Ok Ben, since you like religion being forced on people

you have to go to church every sunday now and listen to fire and brimstone scare tactics

feel better?

There's a big difference between not particularly liking something and thinking it should come under state control. The above argument is possibly your most infantile and nonsensical yet. Why should I have to go to church every week merely because I think we shouldn't ban religion? Your agenda is purely fascist, in the true sense of the word.

Damnit, I said I was walking away and you suck me back in.