Why Tolerate Religion?

[Baranduin]

Because they are religious sympathizers.

Out of two dozens of persons that have participated in this thread, only three persons have explicitly agreed with *any* of your points. One of them was a hit and run. The other is an admitted creationist. And if you check to the other threads in this forum, you'll see that many of us are not precisely sympathetic with religion. Bravo for you, religious nonsympathizer

However, let's say something more constructive, instead of picking on your absurd responses.

I suppose the only morally sound inculcation, in my opinion:
1) Is undertaken voluntarily by mentally competent adults by means that are agreed upon, OR
2) Is undertaken by the children/ward of the consenting mentally competent guardian(s) by means that are agreed upon.

AND is not to injurious or socially subversive ends.

So if a teacher inculcates some knowledge against the children AND the will of they're legal wards - usually their parents -, then it's morally unsound?

How about those parents who want their children NOT to be taught Evolution? Is it immoral to teach them evolution? Proper sex-ed? Multiplication? (I know such a case) Or are you implying that any religious people is not mentally competent? (you've being already asked this, but I haven't seen any answer to that). Are parents who send their children to religious schools because they have better quality mentally incompetent, too?

And nearly certainly, in the cases depicted above, the most serious injury the child is going to receive - besides ignorance; that's another slippery slope - is being laughed at if they try to defend their positions. If they manage to keep their beliefs for themselves - or end in a social environment where such views are acceptable, like DI - and don't choose a career that conflicts with those beliefs - or even if they do, like TF -, they're likely to survive without harm. Most people all over the world receives some indoctrination... and still they can carry on with their lives without an evident trauma.

Your (re)definition is blurry and flawed, and your whole point unfeasible. Let the thread die as the nonsensicality it is.

 

[Ozymandyus]

The last sentence refers to the fact that there is objective historical and statistical evidence of religion negatively correlating to health and prosperity, and therefore is not dependent upon the opinion of the majority.

Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation. Stop making that mistake. Anyone can tell you that education often correlates to a lessening of religious belief. And guess what else correlates with education: Prosperity. Yes, people in dire circumstances cling to the hope that they will have a beautiful afterlife. People that have a wonderful life don't feel as much as a need to do that. There is an OBVIOUS cause for the correlation, and you are completely misinterpreting your 'objective evidence'.

I am an atheist, by the way, (you asked me my religious beliefs a while back). I'm just an atheist that believes that you can't outlaw what people are allowed to talk about. Should we outlaw indoctrination by force, of the sort that we see in some fundamentalist groups where children are told they will burn in hellfire or where people will beat or hit their children if they can't recite the bible or whatever? Yes, we can AND DO. We do not tolerate forceful indoctrination.

Should we outlaw what people tell each other and teach each other... which they can choose to believe or not to believe? NO. Even if they are children, who accept what they are told, you can then go and tell those children why those parents are wrong... or 'indoctrinate' your children with what you believe about religion and those children can then tell the other children what THEY think. You can stop your public schools from using the same sorts of indoctrination, and try to get classes instituted that are inclusive of different belief systems so that children see they have options. But you CANNOT legislate what people believe and whether those people can try to convince other people to believe it too.

Really, I would go after groups like the KKK and the like well before I would go after any of your 'institutions of religious indoctrination'... but we don't because we strongly value freedom of speech. Where would the crusade end? I believe Republicans are BAD for the country, personally. Can I get them to stop teaching their children that black people are thugs by nature, or that Obama is trying to turn the country into a socialist nightmare and take all of our money and give it to people who don't work?

Sorry bout the length, I hadn't written anything since page 2 or so... had a lot saved up apparently =P

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Because they are religious sympathizers.

Out of two dozens of persons that have participated in this thread, only three persons have explicitly agreed with *any* of your points. One of them was a hit and run. The other is an admitted creationist. And if you check to the other threads in this forum, you'll see that many of us are not precisely sympathetic with religion. Bravo for you, religious nonsympathizer

The smiley was supposed to indicate that it was a joke, but once again, sarcasm has failed to permeate through the internet.

So if a teacher inculcates some knowledge against the children AND the will of they're legal wards - usually their parents -, then it's morally unsound?

Hmm, this is something that I have not considered. Good point. I think I can fix it by adding a third part to the consent clause.

Or are you implying that any religious people is not mentally competent? (you've being already asked this, but I haven't seen any answer to that). Are parents who send their children to religious schools because they have better quality mentally incompetent, too?

I did actually answer that question fully by defining mental incompetence:

Mental competence would follow the definition by a court of law. Basically, if a person is profoundly retarded or possesses some severe psychological disorder that impairs judgment, the person is not mentally competent.

But something interesting is implied here when you think about what occurs to victims of brainwashing. A person who is brainwashed severely enough or has been psychologically injured (i.e. driven insane) may possibly be considered mentally incompetent. This is up to psychiatry and diagnostic brain scans to decide.

@Ozymandyus
I understand that correlation does not imply causation.

But you just explained precisely what the evidence shows. Education makes society more prosperous. Religion does not.

 

[Baranduin]

Hmm, this is something that I have not considered. Good point. I think I can fix it by adding a third part to the consent clause.

Glad to be useful.

I did actually answer that question fully by defining mental incompetence:

Mental competence would follow the definition by a court of law. Basically, if a person is profoundly retarded or possesses some severe psychological disorder that impairs judgment, the person is not mentally competent.

But something interesting is implied here when you think about what occurs to victims of brainwashing. A person who is brainwashed severely enough or has been psychologically injured (i.e. driven insane) may possibly be considered mentally incompetent. This is up to psychiatry and diagnostic brain scans to decide.

Do you realize that many countries use or have historically used just the opposite argument, that non-religious - or non-their-religion - people were mentally incompetent?

The last sentence refers to the fact that there is objective historical and statistical evidence of religion negatively correlating to health and prosperity, and therefore is not dependent upon the opinion of the majority.

Could you provide a source? I'm tired of seeing precisely the contrary - that church attendance improves health, that suicide risk is lower... After a quick search on google, the papers I've come across seem to support either this very idea - positive correlation between religion and health - or being inconclusive.

 

[Jotto999]

But you just explained precisely what the evidence shows. Education makes society more prosperous. Religion does not.

But religion isn't the other side of the coin here. That's lack of education. And religion is just a product of that.

We have identified that the problem is actually lack of education. As Ozy pointed out, there are countless bad ideas that you could teach your kids that are certainly harmful by nature, that could fit the brainwashing definition that we established, that aren't necessarily part of any religion.

Since the problem of brainwashing (and religion in general) is that of education, how exactly would making it a punishable by law offense help anything? And why wouldn't you just address it as a problem of education, since that's what it is?

Oh, by the way...so there I was, in your ignore list, but by a stroke of luck someone left the door open for me and I walked out.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

But you just explained precisely what the evidence shows. Education makes society more prosperous. Religion does not.

I'm sure Galileo, Archamedes, Plato, Aristotle, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Chinese Empire, the Aztec Empire, the Persian Empire, and every other society pre-Enlightenment would delightfully agree with you on that poi-

...

Wait - weren't those successful, wealthy nations (conisdered the Jewels of the World at their high points considering the technology at the time) all religious? Did they not all believe in a twisted strand of Dieties that incorperated each and every person's daily life somehow and some way?
Amazing thing : I just countered your absurd claim.

Religion has no bearing on a nation's prosperity - the ammount of knowledge and the technology available does. If you want me to be blunt about it, we're nowhere near the Pax Romana (a span of peace and relaxation in Rome) that lasted 500 years, and they were all religious to some degree.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Education makes society more prosperous. Religion does not.

Religion has no bearing on a nation's prosperity - the ammount of knowledge and the technology available does.

Look at those two quotes very carefully. Read them multiple times. Sleep on it.

When you are ready, tell me how the ideas being presented in these two quotes are or are not different.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Look at those two quotes very carefully. Read them multiple times. Sleep on it.

When you are ready, tell me how the ideas being presented in these two quotes are or are not different.

You claim that it's a detriment. I have brought evidence to the contrary - I've stated that Religion has NOT prevented people from being prosperous.

>>Win

 

[Ozymandyus]

Look at those two quotes very carefully. Read them multiple times. Sleep on it.

When you are ready, tell me how the ideas being presented in these two quotes are or are not different.

Think about what You are saying. You are basically saying that anything that does not actively promote prosperity should not be tolerated. That includes a whole lot of stuff, especially by your very narrow definition of prosperity. In the end such a society is basically a completely totalitarian dystopia, where somehow someone decides what does not lead to prosperity and must 'not be tolerated', often by questionable 'evidence' that is by no means proof. Scary indeed.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Think about what You are saying. You are basically saying that anything that does not actively promote prosperity should not be tolerated. That includes a whole lot of stuff, especially by your very narrow definition of prosperity. In the end such a society is basically a completely totalitarian dystopia, where somehow someone decides what does not lead to prosperity and must 'not be tolerated', often by questionable 'evidence' that is by no means proof. Scary indeed.

I said this 4 pages ago. -_-
He ignored the statement, as it does not support his view.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

No, that is incorrect, Hytegia. I told you to sleep on it.

Education makes society more prosperous. Religion does not.

Religion has no bearing on a nation's prosperity - the ammount of knowledge and the technology available does.

Here is the correct proof:

Let A = "Religion does not (make society more prosperous)."
Let B = "Religion has no bearing on a nation's prosperity"

A is semantically the same as B.

Let C = "Education makes society more prosperous."
Let D = "the amount of knowledge and the technology available does (make society more prosperous)."

Premise 1: Education produces knowledge.
Premise 2: Knowledge produces technology.
Conclusion 1: By syllogism and conjunction, education produces knowledge and technology.

We can now reasonably substitute "knowledge and technology" for "education", so now:
D' = "the amount of (education) available does (make society more prosperous)."

C is semantically the same as D'.

Therefore these quotes are semantically the same. QED

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

No, that is incorrect, Hytegia. I told you to sleep on it.

I'm not refferring to your moved goalposts. I'm refferring to the First page of this discussion, and your signature. - if Religion is the antithesis of free thought and education, then from where cometh the prosperous nations of old? Or is your argument bunk?

 

[Prolescum]

Welcome back, Prolescum. Even though you were only gone for a day, I missed you. :roll:

Think of me as the gremlin on the wing of the aeroplane, you think I've gone, you shake your head thinking you just imagined me, then you look out the other window and your eyes widen as you realise I'm ripping into the fuselage...

If you going to chop up my posts, at least keep the paragraphs together where they form their original, complete idea. Failing to do so is taking things out of context.

For example, the original parenthetical quote was:

Religion can be objectively proven to damage society. It is not just my opinion. There is statistical evidence of religion negatively correlating to health and prosperity. There is a long history of religious crusades and dictatorship. In principle, it doesn't matter how many think the contrary.

The last sentence refers to the fact that there is objective historical and statistical evidence of religion negatively correlating to health and prosperity, and therefore is not dependent upon the opinion of the majority.

This has been taken up by others so I won't bother.

A genuine question I'd like answered: Why do you think almost everyone who has posted in this thread disagrees with your ideas (with varying vociferousness)?

Because they are religious sympathizers.

Okay, now give me your real thoughts. Honestly.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Let me get this straight now:

When Christians/Islamics/etc. demand to control the minds, speech, and basic rights of others - it's morally unsound.
But when UltimateBlasphimer demands to control the minds, speech, and basic rights of others - it's perfectly fine.

That is literally what he has stated within this thread, but I'm too strung for time atm to find the exact quote. I do think that he needs to be reaquainted with the DnD system of Morality - I'd rather be Chaotic Good than Lawful Evil. -_-

 

[Worldquest]

If some people here were to be totally honest, they'd just come out with it : "I want everyone to be an atheist and I'm prepared to violate their free speech, and I'm happy to try and disguise that in any way to make it sound reasonable".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If some people here were to be totally honest, they'd just come out with it : "I want everyone to be an atheist and I'm prepared to violate their free speech, and I'm happy to try and disguise that in any way to make it sound reasonable".

"Some people"?? :lol:

 

[Worldquest]

If some people here were to be totally honest, they'd just come out with it : "I want everyone to be an atheist and I'm prepared to violate their free speech, and I'm happy to try and disguise that in any way to make it sound reasonable".

"Some people"?? :lol:

Yes.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I only know of 2-3 people on this entire board that fill that requirement.
There's the obvious (OP), and in one discussion I had with ScalyBlue the entire thesis of his argument was that I was religious, and that somehow mentally handicapped me from doing the same work as an atheist. My entire thesis argument was that he was being overly biased against them and that what he was suggesting was, at it's baseline, immoral.

I'm going to leave the third out, because he's not as bigotted as some people.

I'm still awaiting a response to my challenge, UB. We could even do it in debate format for your penultimate enjoyment and totalitarian pleasure. Wicca IS a religion, after all - it's been recognized by the United States Armed Forces, and they don't have a pretty track record of being open about such things.

Or is it that your definition of religion a load of shit?

I eagerly await your response.

 

[Prolescum]

If some people here were to be totally honest, they'd just come out with it : "I want everyone to be an atheist and I'm prepared to violate their free speech, and I'm happy to try and disguise that in any way to make it sound reasonable".

wtf? Have you bothered to actually read the thread? This must be why atheists are so... you know.

Because one atheist is pretty much the same as another, what with all the things that connect us like not believing in God and also not believing in gods. We're all totally generic and similar, it's almost like there's only really one of us.

 

[Andiferous]

If some people here were to be totally honest, they'd just come out with it : "I want everyone to be an atheist and I'm prepared to violate their free speech, and I'm happy to try and disguise that in any way to make it sound reasonable".

My friend, disagreeing with a generalisation by creating a new generalisation isn't very helpful.