Should religion be taught in schools?

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

When they're writing the next bible, they should talk to the guys who write IKEA instruction manuals

It's important that instructions for assembling flatpack furniture are clear, easy to follow and not open to interpretation, yet it's acceptable for the bible to be vague and unclear to the point that it is used to justify the beliefs of everyone from the westborough baptist church to the quakers?

Except that everyone knows that you still have to interpret the instructions?

steve06 wrote: »

The basis to a Christian way of life is to lead a good life and be good to others... This is entirely possible without being a Christian, most people do it every day without looking to the bible to help them.

You're missing the most important component or rather leaving it out intentionally

Seachmall wrote: »

No it doesn't, read my point about Jews in my edited post. People who interpret "Son of God" differently aren't Christian, they're a different religion.

Most Jews* don't read the whole Christian Bible.

Seachmall wrote: »

A much better point would be if all theists agreed on the interpretation of the Bible but of course they don't, they interpret it differently. Those bits that you take literally (Son of God) they take metaphorically.

You do realise that most Jews* don't believe in Jesus at all?

* The exception is Jewish people who follow Jesus

Seachmall

Philologos,

Let me put it this way.

Can we agree good evidence should not be open to subjective interpretation?
Can we agree the Bible is open to subjective interpretation?

Most Jews* don't read the whole Christian Bible.

Neither have most Christians, but clearly we're talking about those who have.

You do realise that most Jews* don't believe in Jesus at all?

They don't believe him to be the Messiah.

philologos

Seachmall wrote: »

Philologos,

Let me put it this way.

Can we agree good evidence should not be open to subjective interpretation?
Can we agree the Bible is open to subjective interpretation?

Who said that the Bible is evidence for the Bible? :pac:

smash

philologos wrote: »

You're missing the most important component or rather leaving it out intentionally

And what's that? A belief in a god? Because you don't need that to be nice to people or lead a good life.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Who said that the Bible is evidence for the Bible? :pac:

Don't know where you're getting that from.

My point is,

Good evidence should not be open to subjective interpretation.
The Bible is open to subjective interpretation.

The Bible, many claim, is evidence for God be we have concluded it is not GOOD evidence.

Or do you disagree with my first premise (we've already discussed the second)?

philologos

The Bible isn't evidence for God, it is the hypothesis which must be assessed by the individual. If one was arguing for it being authentic, valid, or whatever else, one needs to see how well the hypothesis pertains to reality. That's the assessment.

In mentioning interpretation we are discussing how we understand the hypothesis. The only argument that one could use purely internally rather than seeing how the internal relates to the external is the assessment of the Bible for internal consistency.

Seachmall

OK, so the crux of it is why do you believe in God (without mentioning the Bible as we're all aware of the hypothesis it presents)?

Joe blogger

very surprised at the poll

of course it should be taught

its just how its taught thats important

Knight who says Meh

steve06 wrote: »

The basis to a Christian way of life is to lead a good life and be good to others... This is entirely possible without being a Christian, most people do it every day without looking to the bible to help them.

philologos wrote: »

Except that everyone knows that you still have to interpret the instructions?


If you dont follow LORD IKEAS instructions properly you end up with a load of crap. Doesnt seem to matter either way with religious texts

You're missing the most important component or rather leaving it out intentionally




Most Jews* don't read the whole Christian Bible.



You do realise that most Jews* don't believe in Jesus at all?

* The exception is Jewish people who follow Jesus

;

Seachmall

Joe blogger wrote: »

very surprised at the poll

of course it should be taught

its just how its taught thats important

OP mentioned earlier he was referring to indoctrination when he asked if it should be taught, just badly worded the poll and original post.

philologos

Knight who says Meh: Explain more fully? You have my interest.

dvpower

Akrasia wrote: »

When they're writing the next bible, they should talk to the guys who write IKEA instruction manuals

As every politician knows, if you want a broad church you need a set of policies that can mean different things to different people.

It almost impossible to get a clear unambiguous answer to some of the most basic questions like 'What is Heaven/Hell?' and 'How do I get/avoid there?'

philologos

Jethropool wrote: »

Nah. I'll just direct you to the Umberto Eco book Travels in Hyperreality. You can read it for yourself there.

I just thought that since you said it that I could expect you to make a case for it. I clearly thought wrong.

Admittedly I have enough of my own reading to be doing right now.

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

I just thought that since you said it that I could expect you to make a case for it. I clearly thought wrong.

Admittedly I have enough of my own reading to be doing right now.

It's in a book. Don't knock it until you've tried it. If you don't want to try it that's something entirely different.

philologos

Jethropool wrote: »

It's in a book. Don't knock it until you've tried it. If you don't want to try it that's something entirely different.

Nonsense.

You've made a claim. I've asked you to stand upon it.

1) If you can back it up yourself, that would be preferrable.
2) If you can't back it up yourself simply say that you can't. That's perfectly fine.
3) If you are going to use a book, I expect you to provide a source where I can look at that book for free and for you to give me citations for where the claims you've mentioned can be found. Or if you have the book perhaps you can quote it.

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense.

You've made a claim. I've asked you to stand upon it.

1) If you can back it up yourself, that would be preferrable.
2) If you can't back it up yourself simply say that you can't. That's perfectly fine.
3) If you are going to use a book, I expect you to provide a source where I can look at that book for free and for you to give me citations for where the claims you've mentioned can be found. Or if you have the book perhaps you can quote it.

Nonsense eh? It was a direct quote from you.

Umberto Eco presents proof in the book that the wedding at Cana was Jesus's own wedding. Can't remember the full details at present and I don't have the book with me, but it was to do with where he was seated.

The questionable young man who was alone with Jesus wearing just a loin cloth which he left behind when he scarpered upon Jesus's arrest in the garden of Gethsemane. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why a man would be naked with another man in a garden in the middle of the night. It's all about interpretation.

You expect any book quoted to be free? So that means anything more than 99 years old or provided free by the author or available through dodgy means? I'll try to keep that in mind. It does seem to exclude a vast amount of literature though.

jemser

no,religion just causes trouble as people are just too stupid to take it for what it is

philologos

I expect you to quote it if you are using it to make an argument yes. This is the same standard I would apply for myself and I do quote texts where necessary to make my argument generally.

I presume you have the book so you could consult it later? You should be able to find the passage/s where Umberto Eco makes this claim and quote them?

I have zero issue with the brothers & sisters claim. I'm curious as to what you said about Jesus' sexuality though, so help me out?

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

I expect you to quote it if you are using it to make an argument yes. This is the same standard I would apply for myself and I do quote texts where necessary to make my argument generally.

I presume you have the book so you could consult it later? You should be able to find the passage/s where Umberto Eco makes this claim and quote them?

I expect people to use reason in forming their conclusions. Doesn't always happen.

I no longer have the book, read it in the early 90's.

smash

philologos have you always read the bible and believed it or have you taken the time to read books or watch documentaries that hold counter arguments?

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

I'm curious as to what you said about Jesus' sexuality though, so help me out?

The passage in Mark that I referred to earlier from the Garden of Gethsemane.

It's also mentioned here

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

smash

I was just about to link to that page.

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

philologos have you always read the bible and believed it or have you taken the time to read books or watch documentaries that hold counter arguments?

I told you already that I decided to believe in Jesus when I was 17. I had read sections of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins by that point, a book which I ultimately found disappointing for a number of reasons. I then read the wittier and significantly more entertaining Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great. I've read numerous articles and watched numerous videos and spent countless times in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum on boards.ie. I just don't find atheism a reasonable conclusion.

Your question is also equally applicable to atheists in the reverse.

Jethropool wrote: »

The passage in Mark that I referred to earlier from the Garden of Gethsemane.

It's also mentioned here

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

A far leap and bound from saying that Jesus was bisexual or homosexual.

smash

philologos wrote: »

Your question is also equally applicable to atheists in the reverse.

Hardly. An atheist asks for proof of a god, a theist looks for proof that there is no god.

Logical thinking says there is no god and the bible is nothing more than selective passages from unreliable sources. When a theist hits a brick wall and can't explain something they put it down to 'god'. It's a cop out.

Every time I refresh the page and read a new random quote in your signature I have to laugh because not 1 of them makes any sense or provides any proof of a god.

previous user

Nope a basic foundation of philosophy should be taught in schools
to help kids deal with the world around them by thinking logically and using reason.
I think then we would grow more as a society.

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

A far leap and bound from saying that Jesus was bisexual or homosexual.

As I said it's all about interpretation. One could interpret from Revelation that John was given the gift of foresight, or that he was smacked out of his head. One could interpret from Enoch that God was an alien from a more advanced society.

To non believers, the bible is a collection of writings, to be treated the same way as any other book. To believers it is believable because it was written a long time ago. If someone wrote it now it would be dismissed, if someone made the same claims now that Jesus did (David Koresh for example), they would be dismissed. Belief is only possible with distance.

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

Hardly. An atheist asks for proof of a god, a theist looks for proof that there is no god.

Of course it is. You've asked me have I consulted skeptical arguments against Christianity, and I have on numerous occasions. I can ask atheists have they genuinely read the Bible for themselves, have they genuinely aimed to know God? This is a different question from asking are they interested or do they care about knowing God. The answer to that may well be no, but any intellectually honest person will aim to find out about the truth of all things even if they don't want to know about it.

steve06 wrote: »

Logical thinking says there is no god and the bible is nothing more than selective passages from unreliable sources. When a theist hits a brick wall and can't explain something they put it down to 'god'. It's a cop out.

Nonsense. Personally I find atheism profoundly illogical in that it doesn't make all that much sense.

When atheists hit a brick wall, they give up. When others hit a brick wall they are interested to see if there is a way to get over it.

steve06 wrote: »

Every time I refresh the page and read a new random quote in your signature I have to laugh because not 1 of them makes any sense or provides any proof of a god.

Edit: And your posts have demonstrated a good reason why I shouldn't believe in God? :pac:

The signature is powered by a rather basic PHP script. (I was thinking of making it better by making a script to fetch passages from a MYSQL database and fetch these using HTTP from BibleGateway and use the GD library but that will have to wait) I add a few in every so often it randomly picks out one. The intention of that signature isn't to provide proof of God, because there is no proof in this argument at all. There are reasons only as to why one believes one is more likely than the other. Having said that, my signature has no other purpose apart from to display what I find so inspiring about Christianity.

Proof is confined to mathematics, it isn't found anywhere else so it is pointless basing this discussion on proof. Rather we should be putting it on reasons why we find God evident, or not as evident. As far as I'm concerned this will also mean that atheists will need to make a positive argument rather than lazily complaining about the reasons that theists may or may not give.

Jethropool wrote:

As I said it's all about interpretation. One could interpret from Revelation that John was given the gift of foresight, or that he was smacked out of his head. One could interpret from Enoch that God was an alien from a more advanced society.

The question that people should ask themselves when they read something, and that is anything, is am I making an unwarranted leap or assumption from what is written in the text. If you are making an unwarranted leap or assumption that is where the realm of speculation comes in. That's beyond interpretation really.

Jethropool wrote:

To non believers, the bible is a collection of writings, to be treated the same way as any other book.

Even if we were to accept that the Bible was a regular book you have made a grandiose assumption. If I wrote a philosophy essay on Plato's Republic and I made the same level of assumption I would expect to fail because I'd have brought in assumptions external to the text and placed them right into it.

Jethropool wrote:

To believers it is believable because it was written a long time ago.

If something is reasonable, it is reasonable for all time. If something is unfounded and irrational it is unfounded and irrational for all time. At least as far as I'm concerned Christianity is fundamentally reasonable from beginning to end.

Jethropool wrote:

If someone wrote it now it would be dismissed, if someone made the same claims now that Jesus did (David Koresh for example), they would be dismissed. Belief is only possible with distance.

You're aware that Christianity was widely dismissed in the first century?

Jethropool

philologos wrote: »

You're aware that Christianity was widely dismissed in the first century?

Precisely my point. There wasn't enough distance yet.

philologos

Jethropool wrote: »

Precisely my point. There wasn't enough distance yet.

Or enough time to persuade, which is why Christian communities began to grow incramentally after Christ.

smash

philologos wrote: »

Of course it is. You've asked me have I consulted skeptical arguments against Christianity, and I have on numerous occasions.

And how did you overcome any arguments... By saying 'because the bible says so'?

philologos wrote: »

I can ask atheists have they genuinely read the Bible for themselves, have they genuinely aimed to know God?

You can't aim, but you will never know something that you can't see, doesn't talk to you, and that there is no proof of.

philologos wrote: »

This is a different question from asking are they interested or do they care about knowing God. The answer to that may well be no, but any intellectually honest person will aim to find out about the truth of all things even if they don't want to know about it.

Finding out about the truth of things involves looking into the science behind them. There is no logical science behind god so theists just say "god has no boundaries"

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense. Personally I find atheism profoundly illogical in that it doesn't make all that much sense.

It is actually profoundly logical. If someone said "there's an apple in this box but if you shake it, it will not move... You also can not see it or feel it or hear it" You'd tell them to go away... this is exactly like the god theory.

philologos wrote: »

When atheists hit a brick wall, they give up. When others hit a brick wall they are interested to see if there is a way to get over it.

When atheists hit a brick wall they look for other logical explanations, theists just look at the bible and find a passage to interpret a meaning for it.

philologos wrote: »

The intention of that signature isn't to provide proof of God, because there is no proof in this argument at all.

Thought so.

philologos wrote: »

There are reasons only as to why one believes one is more likely than the other. Having said that, my signature has no other purpose apart from to display what I find so inspiring about Christianity.

Strange because there are no inspirational quotes there that I can see and also no reasons to believe in a god.

philologos wrote: »

Proof is confined to mathematics, it isn't found anywhere else so it is pointless basing this discussion on proof.

You're undermining your own argument now.

philologos wrote: »

Rather we should be putting it on reasons why we find God evident, or not as evident.

There's a million reasons to find an existence of god not evident. none to find him evident apart from what you make up to fit your situation.

philologos wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned this will also mean that atheists will need to make a positive argument rather than lazily complaining about the reasons that theists may or may not give.

A positive argument for what? The non existence of a god? There's plenty but bible pushers keep referring back to illogical fairy tales and think that they overpower rationality.

philologos wrote: »

Or enough time to persuade, which is why Christian communities began to grow incramentally after Christ.

You shouldn't need centuries to persuade, it should be evident. It's still not evident, it's just deeply engraved and it's fading fast.