Reasons why religion fails to impress

PDN · 25-11-2010 12:46PM

robindch wrote: »

A reasonable point of view, given that Bradley Martin's excellent and exhaustively researched book on the regime in the DPRK, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty, claims that Kim Sung, the regime's founder, grew up in Khabarovsk (AFAIR) in Russia, the son of evangelical christian preachers and was an evangelical himself pretty much until he became a jungle-revolutionary himself.

Certainly, on my trip to the DPRK, there were quite a few non-deistic analogs of christian deistic beliefs to be seen. Had I noticed the copying earlier, I'd have kept notes.

Truly wonderful! You surpass yourself, Robin. Someone who claims to be an atheist, and savagely persecutes Christians, yet their homophobia can be blamed on their Presbyterian parents.

George Orwell would be proud.

Anything two-legged is bad and comes from the Christians.
Anything four-legged is good and comes in spite of the Christians.
Hallelujah and pass the ammunition!

25-11-2010 12:51PM

PDN wrote:

Someone who claims to be an atheist, and savagely persecutes Christians, yet their homophobia can be blamed on their Presbyterian parents.

Childhood indoctrination by one's parents can cause ideologies and prejudices to amalgamate as the child grows. The theory is plausible, but I don't know whether it's true or not, especially as Kim Il-Sung's life story is so often subjected to 'correction'.

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Although I find it interesting that the most high-profile atheist in America, and the head of American Atheists, was "an obviously uneducated twat".

An American Atheists organisation, not the American Atheists organisation. Re-read the excerpt.

PDN wrote:

What about China? Until very recently the vast majority of Chinese despised Abrahamic religions, yet, under an officially atheist regime, gays were rounded up, tortured, and executed. Indeed, the Chinese Psychiatric association still lists homosexuality as a mental disorder - and gays are still subjected to electric shock treatment to 'cure' them.

I think I should clarify that I was speaking in a mostly Western/Middle-Eastern context where Abrahamic religions dominate, and their holy texts specifically prohibit homosexuality.

China (and other totalitarian régimes ruling by perverted Marxism) has a state-sanctioned morality which is very similar to that of conservative Abrahamic adherents, although obviously not as extreme and disgusting as Islamic states. State communism (especially Stalinism) borrows heavily from religion in how it attempts to control the thoughts and actions of the people; it demands unquestioning faith and loyalty to the party and often comes packaged with a personality cult where one individual (and sometimes his offspring) is worshipped.

PDN wrote:

That's all religions fault, is it?

In the totalitarian communist context, I'm not actually sure where that kind of morality comes from. It bears some striking resemblances to Western religions, but I don't know enough about it to speculate on it with any certainty.

In the West, the only homophobia I ever come across does have its roots in religion.

PDN wrote:

Your problem, and it's own that surfaces on this board from time to time, is that your own obvious bias makes your views so laughably unbalanced that you alienate anyone who doesn't alrready share your biases.

Well of course I have a bias: I am opposed to religion. I don't pretend to hide it, and why would I? However, I don't seek to convert anyone, I just enjoy robust discussion and every so often I learn a thing or two. For example, I never gave China much thought, and now I'm curious as to why eastern dictatorships adopt that kind of morality; perhaps they see anything outside the norm as a risk to their absolute control over the lives of their citizens? I reckon that threat was the motivation for the elimination of religion; not because they were atheist, but because the only thing which may be worshipped is the state.

PDN wrote:

Anything bad in the world is religion's fault.

Untrue, and a straw-man, as I never even implied such a thing.

PDN wrote:

Anything good that developed through religion "would have happened anyway".

Why are you putting quotes around that? Again, that's not what I said. I argued that the good works done by religion today could be achieved through purely secular means, thereby making the religious elements redundant.

PDN wrote:

Can you not see the fundamental dishonesty in this approach?

Can you not see the fundamental dishonesty of setting up straw men?

PDN wrote:

George Bush is a 'bad' man - and he says he believes in God and prays. Proof that religion is bad!

PDN wrote:

But hang on, lots of people think Obama is 'good' - and he says he believes in god and prays?

Ah, then Obama must be pretending!

What evidence is there that Obama is pretending, especially since he has talked about his relationship with God more than Bush ever did?

Ah, the proof that Obama is pretending is that you can't be elected in America unless you're a Christian.

But doesn't that argument apply just as much to Bush as it does to Obama?

Let's not talk about that now. Obama isn't bad like George Bush, so he can't really be religious!

:pac:

PDN wrote:

This specious nonsense reaches its height when Christopher Hitchens, unwilling to concede that Rev Martin Luther King Jr was moved to do good by his faith (even though he continually quoted from Scripture) feels motivated to argue that this 'good' man wasn't really a Christian.

Oh cool, I didn't realise Christopher Hitchens was in this discussion.

PDN wrote:

Jesus wept!

Well, if you were put on the Earth for the sole purpose of being tortured, mutilated and killed because other people aren't following the morally dubious laws of the Old Testament, wouldn't you be a bit under the weather?

Zombrex · 25-11-2010 01:02PM

PDN wrote: »

Truly wonderful! You surpass yourself, Robin. Someone who claims to be an atheist, and savagely persecutes Christians, yet their homophobia can be blamed on their Presbyterian parents.

Would you prefer if he just removed the "Presbyterian" bit?

Someone who claims to be an atheist, and savagely persecutes Christians, yet their homophobia can be blamed on their parents.

Would you have any problem with that statement if his parents were atheists?

robindch · 25-11-2010 01:17PM

PDN wrote: »

Someone who claims to be an atheist, and savagely persecutes Christians, yet their homophobia can be blamed on their Presbyterian parents.

Your inability to understand how political authority works within a totalitarian system never ceases to amaze me!

PDN wrote: »

Hallelujah and pass the ammunition!

A new motto for the National Rifle Association?

Zombrex · 25-11-2010 01:18PM

PDN wrote: »

This specious nonsense reaches its height when Christopher Hitchens, unwilling to concede that Rev Martin Luther King Jr was moved to do good by his faith (even though he continually quoted from Scripture) feels motivated to argue that this 'good' man wasn't really a Christian.

If I went to the Christian forum and described Martin Luther King to you without telling you who he was you would say he wasn't really a Christian. :rolleyes:

It is good to see that after 2,000 years Christianity is still mostly about good PR

robindch · 25-11-2010 02:11PM

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

the point made in this thread as a whole is that religion is homophobic and can be used as a validation for that homophobia. Glad to see that point stands unchallenged.

A report in today's Irish Times found that 80% of teachers had witnessed homophobic bullying in schools:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/1123/1224283926453.html

Meanwhile, the Equality Authority report (available here and certainly worth a read) explicitly demands, though without any legal force:

Equality Authority wrote:

What is most important is that no member of staff, parent or student is left with any ambiguity in terms of where the school, including trustees, stands on the issue of homophobic bullying.

I wonder how the trustees of the 92% of the country's schools that happen to be "catholic" can simultaneously believe that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" while also publicly disapproving of homophobic bullying?

More cognitive dissonance, methinks.

Galvasean · 25-11-2010 02:16PM

I'm certainly not of the opinion that religion invented homophobia. It is quite obvious tome that certain contributors to ancient holy texts were already homophobic so decided to incorporate their prejudices into their writings.
Has mainstream religion by and large helped spread homophobia? I would certainly say so.

mattflynn11 · 25-11-2010 02:20PM

It's the brainwashing and the way people have blind faith that worries me most!

aidan24326 · 25-11-2010 03:14PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

I very much doubt that religion was the source of homophobia.

It can't have been no, since religion itself is a man-made product. However, the Abrahamic religions have done so much to spread homophobia and perpetuate it amongst their devotees. There can be no denying that.

Like Galvasean said, the original contributors to the holy texts were obviously homophobic themselves and so put that across in their writings. Unquestioning adherence to dogma has ensured its perpetuation, and to this day we have the pope regularly ranting against the evils of homosexuality. It says alot about his mentality, and the religion of which he's a member, that despite all the horrors in the world two men enjoying sexual pleasure in the privacy of their own bedroom is still so foremost in his mind. Perhaps he's a little, ahem, frustrated himself.

25-11-2010 03:16PM

Perhaps people have just misinterpreted what I've been saying; I never claimed religion invented homophobia. Religion absolutely did not invent homophobia, but in the western world of today, it is the only source of homophobia which I can positively identify. And it's also probably true that homophobic religion was the end result of homophobic sand people recording their hallucinations. There are those people who wouldn't ordinarily be homophobic but who are because it is ingrained into them by their religion or by a culture which is influenced by religion.

In the west, homophobics are (thankfully) in the minority, and their arguments are often theistic. Whenever I have seen homophobia challenged (as it should be), the defence always comes down to arguments which appeal to theism, such as 'it's not natural', or downright pathetic euphemisms which translate into 'I'm not gay, so I find it disgusting and think nobody else should be either'.

At the end of the day, I think homophobia stems from a desire to control the private lives of others and stamp out differences, which is something that organised religion and totalitarianism have in common.

Des Carter · 25-11-2010 05:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps people have just misinterpreted what I've been saying; I never claimed religion invented homophobia.

I beg to differ:

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say homophobics are exclusively religious; one can be homophobic and atheist. However, I believe the source of homophobia is religion (Abrahamic religion in this case). One may not believe in any deities but they may have cultural homophobia drilled into them from birth from parents or a community which is heavily influenced by religion.

mikhail · 25-11-2010 05:38PM

PDN wrote: »

Yes, because atheists are never homophobic, are they?

That there are atheists brought up in our society who are homophobic is unremarkable.

Homophobia is clearly cultural. There are a number of civilisations we know to have widely indulged in homosexual sex - ancient Greece is the first most will think of.

I don't necessarily agree that homophobia is rooted in it, but religion tends to act in a socially conservative matter - which right now means it's acting against gay rights.

robindch · 25-11-2010 05:39PM

Ladesses/Lads/Others:

Te thread title is "Reasons why religion fails to impress".

Let's take it that us on the A+A side are broadly in agreement with the statement that "religions encourage homophobia".

...and see what else we can come up with!

Zombrex · 25-11-2010 05:40PM

robindch wrote: »

I wonder how the trustees of the 92% of the country's schools that happen to be "catholic" can simultaneously believe that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" while also publicly disapproving of homophobic bullying?

More cognitive dissonance, methinks.

Well to be fair I think religion is intrinsic moral evil, but I don't advocate bully of religious people.

Having said that I do feel I have to go out of my way to clarify the second point when ever I make the first point to people who are unfamiliar with my posts, where as I think a lot of Christians are far too comfortable sitting back and going "Nothing to do with us, don't blame us"

While that may get people off on a technicality, I think it happily ignores cause and effect.

Thankfully not all Christians are like this, and there have been some good articles by Christians saying they have a moral responsibility to deal with the negative attitudes homosexuals face.

Unfortunately, particularly on this forum, those Christians seem in the minority.

Des Carter · 25-11-2010 05:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So what? That doesn't imply indoctrination in the slightest. All children are born atheist, therefore it is likely that they will not become theist if their parents are atheists.

Similarly all babies are born without language but they copy their parents. This does not mean they are being indoctrinated into speaking a certain language. There is a big difference between a child copying a parents belief and a belief being forced on a child (indoctrination).

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course there isn't; I was hypothesising, just like you were, except you asserted your speculation as though it were fact.

True although I believe my hypothesis is more accurate than yours.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's not. Children of Catholic parents are brought up in national schools (and even public secondary schools) to pray and believe in a God who supposedly created the universe and all life on Earth, while at the same time they're taught about science.

I don't need evidence, I had a personal experience. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Despite what you might think religion and science CAN co-exist its just the belief that the world was created in 7 days and is 6,000 years old is the problem, however the Church itself has changed its stance on this and this is not taught as fact anymore.

Also just because a school has a Christian ethos does not mean it doesnt allow children from different faiths in. I went to a school with a Christian ethos and they did not discriminate against children from other faiths although Im sure this does happen - but just in the minority of cases

Deleted User wrote: »

Do those things really counter-balance the negatives of religion? I really doubt it. The good works done by religious groups can be achieved by purely secular means.

As a whole no. But we are specifically talking about religion on an economic scale (Religion takes money, resources etc away from other areas like science) and so these points would have to be taken into consideration.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry if you disagree, but religion does breed and demand ignorance. It's not even a matter of opinion. If you believe that the Earth is six thousand years old, or that the entire universe (as it is today) was created in a week, or that the theory of evolution is unsubstantiated, you are ignorant. Those beliefs are factually wrong.

Additionally, it is purely my opinion that positive claims about the existence of a god have not met their burden of proof, and that beliefs based purely on faith are irrational and should not be respected. Why should I respect the religious any more than I respect the loon who believes in personal angels, homoeopathy and magical crystals which can cure disease?

Although I agree with you, you are still being pompous (both to theists AND loons) and so my point stands that you cant complain about others being pompous when you are pompous yourself (this goes for everyone as everyone will believe THEIR beliefs are correct and will then think people who believe something else are irrational)

Delirium · 25-11-2010 05:46PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Similarly all babies are born without language but they copy their parents. This does not mean they are being indoctrinated into speaking a certain language. There is a big difference between a child copying a parents belief and a belief being forced on a child (indoctrination).

Right, so baptising a child is indoctrination, thanks for the update:)

Des Carter · 25-11-2010 05:51PM

koth wrote: »

Right, so baptising a child is indoctrination, thanks for the update:)

Being baptised does not mean beliefs are being forced on them - in fact there is another thread at the moment where atheists are saying that people who were baptised yet dont practice are not christian.

alternatively a-la-carte Christians may baptise their child just for the day out and then not teach them any religion.

25-11-2010 06:08PM

robindch wrote: »

...and see what else we can come up with!

Circular logic.

'The Bible is true!'
'How do you know?'
'Because it's the word of God!'
'How do you know!'
'Because the Bible says so!'

Delirium · 25-11-2010 06:10PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Being baptised does not mean beliefs are being forced on them - in fact there is another thread at the moment where atheists are saying that people who were baptised yet dont practice are not christian.

I would imagine that thread is about adults;)

Baptism is a rite of passage that makes you part of part of the Church. Baptising an infant is indoctrination as the infant is too young to make a decision for itself.

alternatively a-la-carte Christians may baptise their child just for the day out and then not teach them any religion.

Be that as it may, doesn't make it any less of an indoctrination.

I guess that would be part of the reason that religion fails to impress me. The whole 'get them while they're young' philosophy.

I always wonder if the numbers for members of the various religions would be as high if people had to wait until they were 18 before they could join.

25-11-2010 06:27PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Similarly all babies are born without language but they copy their parents. This does not mean they are being indoctrinated into speaking a certain language. There is a big difference between a child copying a parents belief and a belief being forced on a child (indoctrination).

Children brought up in a religion are indoctrinated. That's why they call it 'doctrine'. Infants are too young to know what they believe, and religious parents - more often than not - do actively seek to impose their faith on their children.

Language is a method of communication, and humans have evolved to learn the language of their parents and community because they could not communicate otherwise.

I really can't believe you just compared religion and language.

Des Carter wrote:

Despite what you might think religion and science CAN co-exist its just the belief that the world was created in 7 days and is 6,000 years old is the problem, however the Church itself has changed its stance on this and this is not taught as fact anymore.

They don't co-exist; the Catholic Church has been dragged into the modern era by science, despite its early attempts to suppress counter-doctrinal discoveries which other religions still practice. The only reason the Church now accepts things like the big bang and evolution theories is because Catholics were starting to cop on and think 'ah here lads, it's kind of obvious...'

There are plenty of other problems. Look at issues such as abortion, contraception and homosexuality (which we've dealt with before). If you want to go further, gender equality, human rights and so forth are issues which religious societies keep in the dark ages.

What makes the whole thing bizarre is when the Church decides 'well, alright, six thousand years old is a bit silly... BUT THE REST IS TRUE!'

Des Carter wrote:

Also just because a school has a Christian ethos does not mean it doesnt allow children from different faiths in. I went to a school with a Christian ethos and they did not discriminate against children from other faiths although Im sure this does happen - but just in the minority of cases

I never said they don't let children whose parents are of a different faith in. The issue is that public schools are Catholic, are partially managed by members of the Church and that a child from a Catholic family will be favoured over one who's not (and especially over atheists).

Des Carter wrote:

Although I agree with you, you are still being pompous (both to theists AND loons) and so my point stands that you cant complain about others being pompous when you are pompous yourself (this goes for everyone as everyone will believe THEIR beliefs are correct and will then think people who believe something else are irrational)

If caring about what's true makes me pompous, I'll gladly wear the badge with pride.

You don't seem to understand that there is such a thing as fact. These things aren't my opinion, they are objectively, verifiably true, and people who refuse to accept them are - on that particular topic - stupid. When you (not you specifically) stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA SIX THOUSAND YEARS, ADAM AND EVE, EVOLUTION IS A LIE', you are a moron.

There is no justification for the irrational beliefs I mentioned, so I disagree that they are somehow intrinsically deserving of respect.

Des Carter · 25-11-2010 06:36PM

koth wrote: »

I would imagine that thread is about adults;)

Baptism is a rite of passage that makes you part of part of the Church. Baptising an infant is indoctrination as the infant is too young to make a decision for itself.

Be that as it may, doesn't make it any less of an indoctrination.

I guess that would be part of the reason that religion fails to impress me. The whole 'get them while they're young' philosophy.

I always wonder if the numbers for members of the various religions would be as high if people had to wait until they were 18 before they could join.

Correct me if Im wrong but isnt that the whole point of confirmation (ie confirming that you agree to be a Christian) and I was not forced to make my confirmation and could have chosen not to.

robindch · 25-11-2010 06:52PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Well to be fair I think religion is intrinsic moral evil, but I don't advocate bully of religious people.

The comparison isn't quite fair. Firstly, you're not in a position of public trust, such as the school trustees, in which you've to dictate policy on the treatment of people whom you regard as moral degenerates.

Secondly, I think you're able to distinguish without any trouble between the religion and the believer in the religion. I've never really got the impression from most religious people that they can stick to the current excuse provided by most religious leaders, that the act of having gay sex is evil, while somebody who wants to have gay sex isn't. Not that the current pope seems able to do it himself, when he said that people who wanted to have gay sex were "objectively disordered", whatever that means.

robindch · 25-11-2010 06:55PM

...back on topic...

The willful destruction of the Coloseum in Rome, which had its marble cladding nicked around the 13th century in order to build the colonnade around St Peters Square down the road in the Vatican.

Des Carter · 25-11-2010 07:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Children brought up in a religion are indoctrinated. That's why they call it 'doctrine'. Infants are too young to know what they believe, and religious parents - more often than not - do actively seek to impose their faith on their children.

Similarly they seek to impose their beliefs (for example the belief that their is no God) on their child.
However there is another problem in that they impose THEIR beliefs. However many christians do not believe everything the church teaches and only teach the love others and share etc (leave out homophobia etc) and therefore I do not see the harm.

Deleted User wrote: »

Language is a method of communication, and humans have evolved to learn the language of their parents and community because they could not communicate otherwise.

I really can't believe you just compared religion and language.

I was just using it as an example.

Deleted User wrote: »

They don't co-exist; the Catholic Church has been dragged into the modern era by science, despite its early attempts to suppress counter-doctrinal discoveries which other religions still practice. The only reason the Church now accepts things like the big bang and evolution theories is because Catholics were starting to cop on and think 'ah here lads, it's kind of obvious...'
What makes the whole thing bizarre is when the Church decides 'well, alright, six thousand years old is a bit silly... BUT THE REST IS TRUE!'

Ok Iv had this debate a few times and am still none-the-wiser but are Christians supposed to take the Old Testament as fact? Im not sure of the official church stance on this but I think the OT is open to interpretation.

Deleted User wrote: »

There are plenty of other problems. Look at issues such as abortion,

Yes the idea that murdering innocent babies is wrong is so dark ages and evil :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

contraception and homosexuality (which we've dealt with before). If you want to go further, gender equality, human rights and so forth are issues which religious societies keep in the dark ages

Agree with the rest of them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said they don't let children whose parents are of a different faith in. The issue is that public schools are Catholic, are partially managed by members of the Church and that a child from a Catholic family will be favoured over one who's not (and especially over atheists).

I dont think christian children are favoured!

Deleted User wrote: »

If caring about what's true makes me pompous, I'll gladly wear the badge with pride.

You don't seem to understand that there is such a thing as fact. These things aren't my opinion, they are objectively, verifiably true, and people who refuse to accept them are - on that particular topic - stupid. When you (not you specifically) stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA SIX THOUSAND YEARS, ADAM AND EVE, EVOLUTION IS A LIE', you are a moron.

There is no justification for the irrational beliefs I mentioned, so I disagree that they are deservingsomehow intrinsically of respect.

I agree but you are still pompous - calling people morons and stupid. Now although your description may be accurate this is still a pompous attitude and so sometimes being pompous isn't a negative thing. As a result you cannot say religion is bad as it has a pompous attitude as that implies that everyone with a pompous attitude is bad which as I have mentioned may not be the case.

Improbable · 25-11-2010 08:08PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Similarly they seek to impose their beliefs (for example the belief that their is no God) on their child.
However there is another problem in that they impose THEIR beliefs. However many christians do not believe everything the church teaches and only teach the love others and share etc (leave out homophobia etc) and therefore I do not see the harm.

Given that children are born with no knowledge of any deity, I would consider that the default position. Deviation from the default position is needed in order to believe in god. You're saying that atheists impose their beliefs but the only belief that any atheist has in common with every other atheist is that they don't think god exists. If you teach your child about loving others, you could do that just as easily with no mention of god so that's not a problem. But then you're not teaching your child religion. There's a difference.

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok Iv had this debate a few times and am still none-the-wiser but are Christians supposed to take the Old Testament as fact? Im not sure of the official church stance on this but I think the OT is open to interpretation.

So the OT is open to interpretation. Is the NT open to the same interpretation? Is there actually any bit of it that isn't open to interpretation? Is there a single verifiable supernatural fact in it that provides a reason to believe that it's true? Is it not possible that others throughout history also thought it was open to interpretation and decided to change just a little bit of it, changing the accuracy, thus making it silly to believe such a document could ever be a system for basing your entire view of reality and human existence on?

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes the idea that murdering innocent babies is wrong is so dark ages and evil :rolleyes:

Yeah, its much better to force women to give birth to the children of their rapists.

Des Carter wrote: »

I dont think christian children are favoured!

Did we not have a discussion on one of the other threads about religion and education, particularly at primary school level?

Des Carter wrote: »

I agree but you are still pompous - calling people morons and stupid. Now although your description may be accurate this is still a pompous attitude and so sometimes being pompous isn't a negative thing. As a result you cannot say religion is bad as it has a pompous attitude as that implies that everyone with a pompous attitude is bad which as I have mentioned may not be the case.

Pompous doesn't really fit there. I think the word you're looking for is arrogance. And there's a difference in the scale at which this is applied by religions. Not to mention the fact that even discounting this argument, it's not like "not being pompous" would make up for all the other atrocities which you've already agreed with.

25-11-2010 11:18PM

robindch wrote: »

...back on topic...

The willful destruction of the Coloseum in Rome, which had its marble cladding nicked around the 13th century in order to build the colonnade around St Peters Square down the road in the Vatican.

Yeah, this is another thing which irritates me: how incredibly wealthy certain churches are. The Pope probably pegs his cardinals with phallic gold, they are so minted.

philologos · 26-11-2010 01:15AM

Des Carter wrote: »

Similarly they seek to impose their beliefs (for example the belief that their is no God) on their child.
However there is another problem in that they impose THEIR beliefs. However many christians do not believe everything the church teaches and only teach the love others and share etc (leave out homophobia etc) and therefore I do not see the harm.

You will need to clarify what you mean by the church. Do you mean the churches in general, or Roman Catholicism? It's a confusing term that keeps arising. Christians are parts of many denominations. Are you talking about the church (ecclesia) in the context of Christian believers, the church as in a single institution (such as RCC) or are you talking about the church as a building. It all needs to be clarified.

It is a common assumption for people in Ireland to assume Christian => RCC I've found for some odd reason.

Des Carter · 26-11-2010 02:35AM

Improbable wrote: »

Given that children are born with no knowledge of any deity, I would consider that the default position. Deviation from the default position is needed in order to believe in god. You're saying that atheists impose their beliefs but the only belief that any atheist has in common with every other atheist is that they don't think god exists. If you teach your child about loving others, you could do that just as easily with no mention of god so that's not a problem. But then you're not teaching your child religion. There's a difference.

If thats the case then the childs default position is to know nothing about anything. As a child grows up they are told different things and when they are older they have the option of questioning these things and should be allowed change their views - like santa you tell them hes real and when they are older they will question this and will (probably) change their view. (I have said from the start that if they are not allowed change their view or if a belief is forced on them then yes it wrong).

Improbable wrote: »

So the OT is open to interpretation. Is the NT open to the same interpretation? Is there actually any bit of it that isn't open to interpretation? Is there a single verifiable supernatural fact in it that provides a reason to believe that it's true? Is it not possible that others throughout history also thought it was open to interpretation and decided to change just a little bit of it, changing the basing your e accuracy, thus making it silly to believe such a document could ever be a system forntire view of reality and human existence on?

My personal views on the Bible (both old and new testaments) is different to the "official" belief in the RCC. (At least I think it is as I havent a clue as to what their official stance is - they are very wishy-washy and dont seem to know themselves). But to answer your questions I personally believe that they are both very open to interpretation and infact I believe the Church heavily edited the NT to push alternate agendas. However there is a difference between BASING your beliefs on the NT and taking the NT and OT as fact that cant be questioned. Unfortunately the RCC does the latter and I dont agree with the church on this point.

Improbable wrote: »

Yeah, its much better to force women to give birth to the children of their rapists.

Of course there are some cases where abortion needs to be considered but I was talking about abortion as a whole (i.e as a form of contraception) other instances would have to be looked at but I think thats for another thread.

Improbable wrote: »

Did we not have a discussion on one of the other threads about religion and education, particularly at primary school level?

ya I think we did.

Improbable wrote: »

Pompous doesn't really fit there. I think the word you're looking for is arrogance. And there's a difference in the scale at which this is applied by religions. Not to mention the fact that even discounting this argument, it's not like "not being pompous" would make up for all the other atrocities which you've already agreed with.

No it definately wouldnt come close to making up for other atrocities and I would also accept that the church is extremely pompous but if we were to take this being pompous as a negative as everyone is pompous to some extent.

Des Carter · 26-11-2010 02:39AM

Jakkass wrote: »

You will need to clarify what you mean by the church. Do you mean the churches in general, or Roman Catholicism? It's a confusing term that keeps arising. Christians are parts of many denominations. Are you talking about the church (ecclesia) in the context of Christian believers, the church as in a single institution (such as RCC) or are you talking about the church as a building. It all needs to be clarified.

It is a common assumption for people in Ireland to assume Christian => RCC I've found for some odd reason.

The one with the money and power and the pope, you know with the very confusing stance on contraception.

Improbable · 26-11-2010 03:00AM

Des Carter wrote: »

If thats the case then the childs default position is to know nothing about anything. As a child grows up they are told different things and when they are older they have the option of questioning these things and should be allowed change their views - like santa you tell them hes real and when they are older they will question this and will (probably) change their view. (I have said from the start that if they are not allowed change their view or if a belief is forced on them then yes it wrong).

Not quite the same thing though is it. Everyone who believes in Santa as a child eventually realises that he doesn't really exist and the people teaching it know he doesn't exist. It's a bit of harmless fun for kids. Can't say the same for religions.

Des Carter wrote: »

My personal views on the Bible (both old and new testaments) is different to the "official" belief in the RCC. (At least I think it is as I havent a clue as to what their official stance is - they are very wishy-washy and dont seem to know themselves). But to answer your questions I personally believe that they are both very open to interpretation and infact I believe the Church heavily edited the NT to push alternate agendas. However there is a difference between BASING your beliefs on the NT and taking the NT and OT as fact that cant be questioned. Unfortunately the RCC does the latter and I dont agree with the church on this point.

So you think your views are different but you don't know what their views are. As someone who agrees that the books have been tampered with throughout history, why would you base your beliefs on it? And perhaps somewhat more important to this thread, why should people believe the things written in it? Individual religiosity is never the problem, it's the influence of organised religion that is the issue and their policies on certain issues, both in the past and the present, have been abhorrent.

Des Carter wrote: »

Of course there are some cases where abortion needs to be considered but I was talking about abortion as a whole (i.e as a form of contraception) other instances would have to be looked at but I think thats for another thread.

Fair enough.

Des Carter wrote: »

No it definately wouldnt come close to making up for other atrocities and I would also accept that the church is extremely pompous but if we were to take this being pompous as a negative as everyone is pompous to some extent.

That's kind of what I mean by different scales. The church simply outshines individuals and most other organisations/groups in pomposity (sp?).

To be honest, the main reason I think religion fails to impress is that because there has never ever been verifiable evidence to show or even hint that a god may exist, religious groups have to find some way to draw in new believers and they do so by trying to say that faith, a system of belief without evidence or reason, is a good thing. There's a reason why blind faith has a negative connotation.

Reasons why religion fails to impress

Comments