Ahhh, religion... Ahhhh, Islam

[saintbletch]

I can't speak for others but certainly my experience is that to be a Christian you do have to believe in God. I strongly contest that you have to engage in any traditional rituals in order to be a christian though. My understanding is that being a Christian means believing in God and living your life by following Christian values but all the other stuff to my mind is optional. My father has in the past attended the Community church in Southampton- a "church" pretty far removed from my idea of a church at any rate. I don't know about now but when I attended in the past there was no symbolism as such. There were songs sure but it was up to the individual how much they participated or not (which IMO is how it should be!). I respect the faith my father has though I do not share it to the same degree precisely because the last thing he ever does is ram it down people's throats. His belief is that he shows people he is a Christian through the way he lives his life so there is never any need to go out of his way to mention it.

 

I think there would be some disagreements about your statement that religions believe in the same God. My experience is that believers of religions believe in one God but that it is not necessarily the same. In regards to your last point, I would say that the belief in God is pretty fundamental to being a Christian (though of course it is entirely possible to live by the teachings of Christianity though not believe in God.)

 

Thanks for the interesting conversation, I of course can't even begin to know any of the answers but that's how I see it (just to make it blindingly obvious to notnowcato.)

 

Wouldn't disagree with any of that hypochondriac, and good to have you expand on your thoughts. Glad you took the time.

 

One question though, as it seems to be a theme in a number of your posts. Do you think people without faith often seek to belittle others with faith?

 

I haven't seen it often - if at all, but I'd readily concede that I might not be attuned to notice it.

[saintbletch]

Dear me, an SWF religion thread that had all the hallmarks of becoming the usual poxy slanging match becomes genuinely interesting!! I suppose one of the new mods will flex their muscles before long....

 

It'll be fine as long as you bigoted haven't-got-a-clueists don't start to dominate it with your open-mindedness and tolerance of other people's values and beliefs.

[Frank's cousin]

I think some of faith probably feel they are being ridiculed or their faith belittled... afterall if you deny the existance of a god, you are in effect 'laughing' at their beliefs, even if not physically, certainly its probably impossible not to imply it. Its possible taht most who dont believe do think its all mumbo jumbo or words to that effect, so I suspect its easy for believers to feel we are belittling them - our opinion does that whether intended or not.

[Sheaf Saint]

I think some of faith probably feel they are being ridiculed or their faith belittled... afterall if you deny the existance of a god' date=' you are in effect 'laughing' at their beliefs, even if not physically, certainly its probably impossible not to imply it. Its possible taht most who dont believe do think its all mumbo jumbo or words to that effect, so I suspect its easy for believers to feel we are belittling them - our opinion does that whether intended or not.[/quote']

 

Yes this is my reading of it too FC. While I consider myself to be technically agnostic, my intrinsic sense of reason and logic leads me to answer "probably/almost-certainly not" when asked if I believe in the existence of God. So when I offer this answer to somebody on the other end of the spectrum, it is perhaps inevitable that they will feel that my own beliefs are indeed belittling their own.

 

I do not and would never begrudge anybody to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they have thought hard about it and arrived at their conclusions independently, as opposed to having them instilled from a young age by their family or peers. Sadly, most often when I have this debate with people, this appears to not be the case. It is interesting to see just how defensive people of faith become when you pose reasonable and logical questions of their beliefs. It's almost as if they already know that there is no rational explanation for what they believe yet they have to find ways of justifying it anyway. It's when religious types respond to questions of contradiction in religious texts with God moves in mysterious ways that I tune out and leave them to it.

[View From The Top]

I quite admire people of faith. I think that they are utterly & totally stark raving mad & that their kids should be taken into care but I still admire their dogged determination to believe in talking snakes, virgins in paradise and equally bonkers ideas.

 

I also think that they are far more likely to have really sh.it sex lives hence why they are always to fu.cking up tight.

[Sheaf Saint]

Interesting viewpoint VFTT. Somebody recently sent me a picture describing Christianity as "The irrational belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil spirit that exists in mankind because a woman made from a man's rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magic tree".

[View From The Top]

Interesting viewpoint VFTT. Somebody recently sent me a picture describing Christianity as "The irrational belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil spirit that exists in mankind because a woman made from a man's rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magic tree".

 

Now that's an excellent description.

[Sheaf Saint]

[hypochondriac]

Wouldn't disagree with any of that hypochondriac, and good to have you expand on your thoughts. Glad you took the time.

 

One question though, as it seems to be a theme in a number of your posts. Do you think people without faith often seek to belittle others with faith?

 

I haven't seen it often - if at all, but I'd readily concede that I might not be attuned to notice it.

 

I have found that quite a lot of atheists can't just accept someone who has faith and a lot of them in my experience have a problem with someone having a belief in god. I'm neither a hugely religious person or an atheist but I am quite happy for people to believe what they like even if I think it is nonsense.

[hypochondriac]

Saying something like you believe that those with faith are not fit to look after children is a perfect example of belittling someone.

[Saintandy666]

Saying something like you believe that those with faith are not fit to look after children is a perfect example of belittling someone.

 

It is of course utter nonsense. Bad people come in all shapes, forms and sizes. Athiest and Christian. Hindu and Jew. And of course they are also plenty of decent people of all types too.

 

Going off on a slight tangent here, but I would say that a religion shouldn't be forced upon a young child. They should be left unchristened or equivalent until such an age at which they can decide for themselves what they think about the world.

 

Calling a child a Christian child or a Muslim child or a Sikh child is just wrong. They are the children of parents who hold those beliefs. It's just as ridiculous as calling a 6 year old a 'Marxist child'.

[tpbury]

Great post - I only wish I had the prose or intellect to write so eloquently on the subject! I am an atheist - comming to that conclusion after a Catholic childhood and the liberation afforded by science' date=' knowledge and hopefully reason. As a biologist with a strong evolutionary bent, science provides the rational for how belief and 'faith' could become so important to early society - not the usual simplistic view that fear of the unknown drove imagination of superior beings or some sort of order directed from above or below, but right back to the simple concepts of Natural selection and anisogamy - Anisogamy descripes the difference between male and female gametes or reproductive cells (sprem and egg). It is because of this that we have evolved so many of our behaviours and emotions - given that our genetic 'virus' we carry is hell bent on reproducing itself, females are limited by the number of offspring they can carry in a life time, Males by the number of females they can impregnate! (not that this is an excuse worth testing out with the Mrs - may fall on death ears:scared:)... but because it takes many years for children to reach maturity and pass on your genes themselves, and that in teh early years it wa sclear that these offspring stood a better chance of suvival if two or more adults stuck around, like other animals we evolved pair bonding and the emotions that come with it - move on a geological 'years' and we have ecolved into societies and given this combination of biological driver (need to reproduce) juxtaposed with our emotional needs - you can see that some sort of order might be necessary for it to work harmoniously - and give you genes a chance of a next generation - eg you survive, your kids survive, are not murdered or maimed or reduced in in genetic quality through 'inbreeding' etc - The best thinkers recognised these issues and drew up rules by which a society would function - a philosophy if you like - and whilst natural selection does not work at society level, only on the individual, (although some have since argued this point) - the benefits in organisation for all individuals paid dividends - I suspect that thos eearly law masters felt comelled to add a bit of mysticism to the 'rules' to ensure the points were made - afterall 'gods' law was probably easier to reinforce than an old mans, especially when backed up by examples of how angry He could get if they were not followed as they pointed to the erupting volcano! .... the rest as they say is history, but it is interesting that IMHO the seeds of religion, are based on the philosophy you describe, itself based the need for an organised and chaos free society... which in turn was driven by an evolutionary pressure to ensure maximum survival of the genetic material... nice little anecdote for when next in discussion with the creationists I always find. [/quote']

 

Do you recommend any reading around these concepts? I am forever musing on when society 'happened'. That is why I find myself reading those books that cover a family from caave man times to modern times. I don't know whether these are considered trash, but I like them!

[niceandfriendly]

Woah, this thread has moved too fast for me. I wanted to post this yesterday but my account is now restricted to 3 posts per day, so some of the points that I have raised appear to have already been covered by others. So sorry if I'm a tad behind.

 

Atheism is, specifically, the rejection of a belief in god(s). As it is impossible to actually know, 100%, that god either does or doesn't exist, and neither can be proved, it follows that you can only believe that they do or don't based on science, teachings, and personal opinion and experience. Nobody can say with absolute certainty that god(s) do not exist, but we are free to believe that.

 

Absolutely correct. However, it is also impossible to prove 100% that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Does that mean that not believing in the tooth fairy is a religion? Bill Maher put it nicely once when he said "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position".

 

Here is the google definition of atheism: "The belief or theory that god does not exist. " Here is the google definition of religion: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

 

So being an atheist really isn't similar in any way shape or form to being religious.

 

Oh and I like your idea of a "we-haven't-got-a-clue-ism" or whatever you called it. I will join that. Thankfully though, the scientific community are working on this so we don't have to!

 

I didn't mention agnostics, btw.

I'd always seen agnostics as different from atheists to be honest but you appear to be conflating them here. To me, you either BELIEVE that there is no God/are no god/s (atheist) or you BELIEVE that we can't know whether there is a God/are gods (agnostic).

 

Yeah sorry I wasn't clear at all there. I meant to type atheists, but I rather see myself as more of an agnostic so typed that accidentally. I don't believe however that the two are completely mutually exclusive. I am an atheist in the sense that all the logic, reason and evidence suggests that a supernatural power such as "god" (whichever "god" we are actually talking about here) is highly unlikely, too unlikely for me to feel otherwise. However, I am also agnostic in that I cannot be 100% sure that god does not exist. How can I be? As I already said, how can we be sure that any myth or fairy tale is not actually real? We can't.

 

However, just like religious stories; the fairy godmother, the incredible hulk, Zeus, goblins and the easter bunny are man made, so I have no choice but believe them to be untruths.

 

But our religions are truly remarkable achievements of the Human intellect that atheists casually dismiss at their peril. Anyone with even the sketchiest knowledge of the New Testament or the Koran should understand what monumental works of philosophy they are. Yes they are contradictory at times, and they have been misused by those intent on exploiting them for their own ends, but that should not blind us to their central message of love and forgiveness. I say the awesome wisdom of our ancestors as exhibited in the great religions, the fact they understood so very much about what it means to be a moral Human Being hint at the heights we as a species might one day scale.

 

It's absolutely true that the Bible and the Koran are things to be respected and learned from. They are wonderful, wonderful stories and magnificent pieces of work. They were our first attempt at philosophy and medical care. So I agree with what you're saying that there are great things to learn from these scriptures, but - as you well know as you're not a religious man yourself - just because there are good teachings to be found within them, it doesn't make them true.

 

I would also argue that the central message of these religions is love and forgiveness. Really? Have a look at the penalty in Islam for apostasy. F*** it, I'll just tell you. It's death. Think about the whole idea of an eternity in hell and how this is preached to young, impressionable children. There's nothing constructive or forgiving about hell. You don't come out a better person. You don't come out at all.

 

This fear of punishment is used to indoctrinate children and is the very reason why religious faith is so prevalent today. It's, in my opinion, the opposite of loving. It's disgusting and immoral.

 

What contradictions we are - so very wise but still so needful in nature, so humane yet capable of such utterly cruelty as well. In some ways humanity already resembles the capricious old Gods on Mt Olympus. Is that all we can ever be ?

 

Very good question, and I think the answer is no, it's not. Scientists are desperately trying to find the answers to the BIG questions which all humans ask themselves - some on a more regular basis than others. One thing is for sure though, if we were all religious then that is certainly all we could ever be. Because, of course, with religion there are no more questions to be answered. God made us. The End. Fact-a-mundo. What d'ya mean "space"? Multiverse? Our universe just one of billions? What? The Earth is how old? Micro Bacteria, eh? Ah, Bacteria-schmeeria!

 

What really irks me is when people who have no faith try to ridicule those that do.

 

I'm sorry, but can you explain how believing in virgin births, resurrections etc does not deserve ridicule? I have every right to ridicule them for their beliefs just as they have every right to ridicule me for mine, if they choose to. I don't buy this "you need to respect religious views" mantra. Religion gets way, way too much respect in our society as it is.

 

On the other hand, ff someone feels offended by someone ridiculing their beliefs, doesn't that mean they're a little insecure with exactly what they believe in? If you know in your mind that everything you believe is true, who cares what a couple of atheists have to say on the matter? When creationists attempt to claim evolution as a fraud and mock my lack of religious belief, I don't get offended, I just sigh.

 

On the flip side, I just don't buy the argument that society in some way needs religion to provide morality. People just need open-minded education.

 

Absolutely. As I've alluded to earlier, any religion which preaches about hell, upholds the death penalty for apostasy etc have no right to teach anyone about morality.

 

Don't forget that religion has done a lot of good around the world, and continues to do so.

 

A good point. And in the many cases where it does good it should be applauded. In the cases where it helps a grieving mother over a lost child, I've no problem. Just keep it out of schools and politics.

 

Just because someone has a strong faith does not mean they are stupid.

 

And of course you're right but that entirely depends on exactly what said person has faith in. For example, if I told you about a flying chair that was talking to me and giving me advice and such like, and that I had a deep, deep faith in said flying chair as it has been a part of my family for generations and that it has helped my loved ones through trauma and the ups and downs of life, you'd call me a f*cking nutjob, and rightly so. Yet, when you say it's "religion" you're expected to say "Oh yes very nice" and respect their beliefs. That doesn't sit well with me at all.

 

As a humanist I will respect religious people for what they are; homo-sapiens. I will respect their human rights and their right to believe whatever they wish to believe. But do I have to respect the beliefs themselves? Do I buggery.

 

An awful lot of scientists believe in God, ( in whatever form their adopted religion presents Him/Her/Them ).

 

A minority of Scientists do. But yes, a surprising number of scientists do indeed claim a faith. Baffling. And what's more concerning is how many Science teachers in schools are religious and teach their students that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

 

Chrsitian values - its only christians that have claimed ownership of 'values' in this way - the values you mean, of kindness, honesty, graft, charity etc the good things are not exclusive to christians

 

So true. Religious people do not have a monopoly on being good!

 

 

To conclude, yes, religion has done much good for the World and for its people. Religious people in general are good, caring, peaceful people. However, this doesn't take away from the fact that they support a backward belief system which by its own scriptures proves itself to be immoral and in many parts, frankly, disgusting. We can sit here and argue the pros and cons of religion until the cows come home, but to honest none of that is important. The only important question is, "is it true?".

 

All evidence suggests that it's not. And in the meantime, religious belief is leading to our children to be denied a complete education. I'm talking about how evolution is not taught in a huge number of schools.

 

Evolution is a fact and there really is no getting around that, I'm sure nobody on here (even the believers among us) is daft enough to claim it to be false, but it's kept out of the classroom for the fear of offending certain religions. This is absolutely outrageous, and is a prime example of how religion is not "harmless" as people often say.

[niceandfriendly]

Oh, and to those who insist on calling Richard Dawkins "fanatical" please stop. Read any of his books or watch a show or two of his. He has never claimed to be able to say 100% that god doesn't exist. In fact he regularly states the opposite. He simply says, as an agnostic, that there has never been one piece of evidence to support this idea. If one was presented he would take it on merit and reevaluate. Just like all Scientists do with a theory/scientific fact. It is only a "fact" until it is proven wrong.

[Frank's cousin]

Do you recommend any reading around these concepts? I am forever musing on when society 'happened'. That is why I find myself reading those books that cover a family from caave man times to modern times. I don't know whether these are considered trash, but I like them!

 

Thats a tough one as it takes me back to Uni days ...some 20+ years ago (Ouch) - the evolutionary stuff can be found an any decent behavioural ecology text book - 'Evolutionary Biology' Douglas Futuyama and Behavioural Ecology by Krebs an Davies - but be prepared for a lot bird pair bonding, and heavy on the science rathyer than the philosophical questions if you read cover to cover - and there are probably more recent texts - the anisogamy stuff can be found in most under 'evolution of secondary sexual characteristics' chapters - interesting stuff and is where it moves form biology into anthropology.

 

The evolution of society (from a biological/evoultion perspective - or the influence of 'The Selfish Gene' (Darwkins) on society as a whole) - that I cant really help you with Im afraid as most the the stuff I read was individual papers from various journals when following up tutorials on the subject and tasked with the essay chore... interseting stuff but still got in the way of drinking and other 'sins' - The ideas that we formed societies due to the biological need to raise children in a safer enironment - built originally on the family unit are nothing new - nor that as these communities grow, rules and order was needed to ensure it functioned correctly is also pretty self explanatory - but making the link to this creating a receptivity for religion to flourish - a form of early control if you like is where it gets a bit contentious as you can imagine - personally I see it as a very obvius and logical step - especially when you understand th true power and influence that natural selection had on our evolution of behaviour and emotion, but you will find plenty who would disagree.

[Frank's cousin]

Saying something like you believe that those with faith are not fit to look after children is a perfect example of belittling someone.

 

Dont think anyone has said this Hypo - I would happily admit that most religious parents are probably decent ones. The issue is whether its right that children should be brought up to follow the religious desires and beliefs of their parents from a young age when they are still incapable of rationalizing this or are not taught that its only one of many belief systems. If we want to advocate an individuals right to believe what they want to believe - then that surely must start from a young age when they absorb what is told to them by parents they trust as 'gospel' - therefore if we believe its their right to chose, they should be left alone until they reach an age when they can learn about all belief systems and determine what is right for them?

 

The problem for the institutions is that under those circumstances, I believe such beliefs would be gone within a couple of generations.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I quite admire people of faith. I think that they are utterly & totally stark raving mad & that their kids should be taken into care but I still admire their dogged determination to believe in talking snakes, virgins in paradise and equally bonkers ideas.

 

I also think that they are far more likely to have really sh.it sex lives hence why they are always to fu.cking up tight.

 

Totally mad I am sure but why do the COE schools outperform other schools and why is it so difficult to get your children into them?

[saintbletch]

Do you recommend any reading around these concepts? I am forever musing on when society 'happened'. That is why I find myself reading those books that cover a family from caave man times to modern times. I don't know whether these are considered trash, but I like them!

 

Per Frank's cousin's post, you could take a look at Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". In it he introduced the concept of a meme and memetics (amongst a lot of other ground-breaking theories on evolutionary biology). Dawkins contends that In the same way that genes are passed down family lines; memes are the cultural concepts, practices and rituals that get passed from generation to generation. A meme is a unit of cultural information in the same way a gene is a unit of genetic information.

 

These memes are the learned behaviours that individuals would adopt to feel part of a wider family grouping, extended family grouping and society. En mass societies adopted these social concepts to be safe, share food, work together, not kill each other, etc. Dawkins contends that these are not necessarily passed consciously but are often subconsciously passed contagiously.

 

Societies that embraced cooperative rituals survived whereas groups of individuals that were in it for themselves might survive and thrive in their life time, but being on their own made getting their genes into the wider gene pool instead of into pre-historic Kleenex, much more difficult. Their attitudes and behaviours died with them.

 

Dawkins, somewhat contentiously, says that such social memes that we now see as religious morals came about not through divine message but rather through the subconscious/conscious realisation that such rules help a society as a whole to survive, resist its enemies and importantly reproduce. These 'memes' passed by rote and religious worship rituals gave societies the sort of cooperative structures that Frank's cousin describes. Societies, or lose groupings of individuals that did not have these cooperative morals (we might now call religious beliefs) weren't able to colonise and breed across other societies and their genes and behaviours died with them.

 

Memes talk to our need to belong. We see behaviours in others we would like to be like and we adopt them - either consciously or subconsciously. A modern-day example of a meme is the use of the term "mong" and "mongboard" on this message board. Those that use it see some value and advantage in using it. Look at the match day threads on here and you will find a group of people who have come together and use their own, almost impenetrable memes - woots, pictures of nuns, predictions of goals being scored on a specific page. Look at the Pompey Takeover Sage thread, the same is true. Try to join those threads and try to resist joining in on the in-jokes and concepts used and you'd have a hard time. Adopt the meme or look and feel out of place. Many of us are uncomfortable with that, so we coalesce. Fascinating.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Niceandfriendly it is about respect. What are your thoughts on the Thai Royal family?

[Sheaf Saint]

Dont think anyone has said this Hypo - I would happily admit that most religious parents are probably decent ones. The issue is whether its right that children should be brought up to follow the religious desires and beliefs of their parents from a young age when they are still incapable of rationalizing this or are not taught that its only one of many belief systems. If we want to advocate an individuals right to believe what they want to believe - then that surely must start from a young age when they absorb what is told to them by parents they trust as 'gospel' - therefore if we believe its their right to chose, they should be left alone until they reach an age when they can learn about all belief systems and determine what is right for them?

 

The problem for the institutions is that under those circumstances, I believe such beliefs would be gone within a couple of generations.

 

I think you need to re-read View From The Top's post (#105)

 

Again I find myself in almost total agreement with you though FC. It could be argued that forcing your own religious opinions onto your children and making them believe they will burn in the eternal fires of hell unless they conform is a form of psychological abuse. In a totally free and fair society, parents would refrain from imposing their own views on their children and instead wait until they are old enough to use critical thinking to determine for themselves what fits into their own world view. If all parents did this then there would obviously be a much more even spread of religious beliefs in all areas of the world, but this clearly isn't the case, and it is clearly even less so with Islam in particular.

 

As I said recently in the thread about the parents of Shafilea Ahmed, I have a close friend who is from a Muslim family, and her father refused to even speak to her for years after she told him that she had read the Quran and had decided that she did not want to live her life according to the rituals and beliefs contained within it. He clearly felt that his own devotion to the doctrine that he had been subjected to was worth more to him than his relationship with his daughter. Very sad indeed, and it highlights perfectly how religion can poison and divide people.

[tpbury]

Thanks FC, and Bletch, I've heard of Dawkins, but not partaken, so I should do. I think the idea of people coming together to look after each other - ie congregate is what caused religion, like. And buying into the idea that their 5hitty lives and some reason.

[hypochondriac]

Dont think anyone has said this Hypo - I would happily admit that most religious parents are probably decent ones. The issue is whether its right that children should be brought up to follow the religious desires and beliefs of their parents from a young age when they are still incapable of rationalizing this or are not taught that its only one of many belief systems. If we want to advocate an individuals right to believe what they want to believe - then that surely must start from a young age when they absorb what is told to them by parents they trust as 'gospel' - therefore if we believe its their right to chose, they should be left alone until they reach an age when they can learn about all belief systems and determine what is right for them?

 

The problem for the institutions is that under those circumstances, I believe such beliefs would be gone within a couple of generations.

 

That isn't what he said at all. He said all people with religious beliefs should have their children taken into care as if everyone who is religious forces their children into their religion. That was never my experience growing up. Yes I went to church but then when I was older my parents let me decide for myself. Same with my girlfriend who is a muslim. The idea that all religious people are forcing their offspring into their religion is seriously misguided though I accept that in some cases it does happen.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It is of course utter nonsense. Bad people come in all shapes, forms and sizes. Athiest and Christian. Hindu and Jew. And of course they are also plenty of decent people of all types too.

 

Going off on a slight tangent here, but I would say that a religion shouldn't be forced upon a young child. They should be left unchristened or equivalent until such an age at which they can decide for themselves what they think about the world.

 

Calling a child a Christian child or a Muslim child or a Sikh child is just wrong. They are the children of parents who hold those beliefs. It's just as ridiculous as calling a 6 year old a 'Marxist child'.

 

What are you proposing, to confiscate bibles and Korans from family homes. You really don't believe that in our free society people cannot make up their own minds? It seems to me that you do not believe in basic freedoms.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

That isn't what he said at all. He said all people with religious beliefs should have their children taken into care as if everyone who is religious forces their children into their religion. That was never my experience growing up. Yes I went to church but then when I was older my parents let me decide for myself. Same with my girlfriend who is a muslim. The idea that all religious people are forcing their offspring into their religion is seriously misguided though I accept that in some cases it does happen.

 

I am afraid Hypo it is another classic case of people not believing that people are capable are thinking for themselves. They have this totally misguided belive that in family homes all around the country thousands of children are locked in bedrooms with bread, water and a copy of the bible.

[hypochondriac]

I am afraid Hypo it is another classic case of people not believing that people are capable are thinking for themselves. They have this totally misguided belive that in family homes all around the country thousands of children are locked in bedrooms with bread, water and a copy of the bible.

 

Exactly. I like to think that my parents gave me a bit more credit than that. They understood that I am my own person who can think for myself. They introduced me to christianity through which I believe I learnt quite a bit. I then was allowed to decide for myself how I wanted to live my life. I still go to a small local church that my grandma used to attend on christmas day simply because I like the tradition and I went at easter last year. Why people assume that all offspring of religious folk are forever destined to be religious themselves I have no idea. And even if they are, it's not necessarily a consequence of having it forced into them from an early age. Talk of burning in hell if you don't follow christianity was never something that I experienced as a child and I suspect that is similar for the vast majority. Reading something like that just makes me think of those old films set in Irish boarding schools. It's an alien concept.

[Frank's cousin]

I am afraid Hypo it is another classic case of people not believing that people are capable are thinking for themselves. They have this totally misguided belive that in family homes all around the country thousands of children are locked in bedrooms with bread, water and a copy of the bible.

 

Arn't they and and if not why not! ?

 

Seriously though, The problem I have is we all develop our sense of self and independent thought at different rates - and some of us are naturally more suseptable to the power and influence of others - it does not necessarily demand extreme forms of teachings, but often the very subtle elements (which as Hypo points out are usually harmless and good values) are transferred - in many respects we dont consider these subte things at all as in the majority of cases they are positive reinforcements of good values, but in others as Bletch mentions with Dawkin's Meme theories, can this subtle almost subconcious transfer, mean athat in later life we are truely free to make an informed choice, or does the legacy of these subtle if good teachings contribute to why so many feel the need to keep teh 'door open' with respect to faith and belief even if not practicing? Interesting stuff.

 

Thanks Bletch for bringing up Memes - had forgotten about that and it must be 20 years since I read the Selfish Gene, Extended Phenotype and Blind Watchmaker - all good stuff, even if some have accused Dawkins (rather disengenously IMHO) of a zealot like approach to evolution - but as you have stated, he like all scientists is happy to acknowledge that some day evidence may make him change his mind as unlikely as that may be.

Edited 22 August, 2012 by Frank's cousin

[Frank's cousin]

Thanks FC, and Bletch, I've heard of Dawkins, but not partaken, so I should do. I think the idea of people coming together to look after each other - ie congregate is what caused religion, like. And buying into the idea that their 5hitty lives and some reason.

 

Be careful - Read 'The God Dillusion' on a flight to New York several yaers ago and was nearly spat at by an old crone who called me blasphemous and in league with teh devil or something equally absurd!

[Frank's cousin]

That isn't what he said at all. He said all people with religious beliefs should have their children taken into care as if everyone who is religious forces their children into their religion. That was never my experience growing up. Yes I went to church but then when I was older my parents let me decide for myself. Same with my girlfriend who is a muslim. The idea that all religious people are forcing their offspring into their religion is seriously misguided though I accept that in some cases it does happen.

 

I see, went back and re-read - see what you mean - but I can see the point even if it was not so subtly expressed - Dawkins asks the question in The God Dillusion as to whether bring children up within any religious doctrine could be considerd abuse - more subtle than the post above and more posed in light of the long term and sub concious influence such teachings can have - see my point on whether this means we are ever truely free to make up our minds later.

[hypochondriac]

I see' date=' went back and re-read - see what you mean - but I can see the point even if it was not so subtly expressed - Dawkins asks the question in The God Dillusion as to whether bring children up [b']within any religious doctrine [/b]could be considerd abuse - more subtle than the post above and more posed in light of the long term and sub concious influence such teachings can have - see my point on whether this means we are ever truely free to make up our minds later.

 

What would be your definition of being brought up with religious doctrine?

[Frank's cousin]

Totally mad I am sure but why do the COE schools outperform other schools and why is it so difficult to get your children into them?

 

That is an interesting one - but probably less to do with religion and more to do with the demographic of the intake - if you are the kind of parent that that takes a huges interest in your childrens education, to teh poiint where you actually move house and go to church a few times to get you kids into a certain school, chances are the value you place on education has been instilled in our kids - probably a chicken and egg situation, but the 'quality' of the learning environment is enhanced or created by the willingness to learn of the students and less about the issue of it being a 'faith school' (certainly the CoE and Catholic schools)

[Frank's cousin]

What would be your definition of being brought up with religious doctrine?

 

Good question - Most parents will bring up their kids to a set or values - some will assign these values as having been laid down by their religion or even demanded by God - I guess its a sliding scale of how much is associated with religeous belief versus basic human values - In the example above Dawkins talks more about the extreme cases

- the more othodox or fundementalist parents, but also talks about the more subtle forms - it all depends on whether we consider it likely that an environment in which god or a religeon is credited for the the 'good' values - influences our choices in later life and whether it actually matters or not - no right answersI guess but an interesting point - are we able to make a triuely independent choice if we have always been led to believe that good and god are intrinsically linked?

[saintbletch]

Be careful - Read 'The God Dillusion' on a flight to New York several yaers ago and was nearly spat at by an old crone who called me blasphemous and in league with teh devil or something equally absurd!

 

A few further qualifications for you tpbury.

 

Dawkins is an excellent communicator. He conveys complex concepts really thoroughly and really clearly. But he also carries out a lot of research and background and he wants to tell you all of it to support his conclusion. It's not for the faint of heart. It's a bit like reading a Frank's cousin post actually! (rich coming from me, I know).

 

But seriously, The Selfish Gene focuses more on the biological level of evolution than it does on the societal. Still a good read though.

 

Also, if you haven't read The God Delusion then I'd start there. The only issue I had with it is that I found that Dawkins came across as almost fanatical in his pursuit of putting down religion. But as that was the main point of the book, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Frank's cousin]

... wuld add as well, one legacy of my upbringing which was fairly normal catholic (lapsed type), is that there is always some truth in the 'never see an atheist in a foxhole' - the legacy it left with me, despite being a non-believer, is at the very worst times when all rational thought is overwhelmed by emotion, (when my wife was diagnosed with leukaemia for example - dont worry long time ago and all fine and dandy for last 15 years) - I did find myself pleading to a 'devine being' to get us through this even though I dont believe in one - which I cant explain beyond the fact that my childhood must have provided this subcncious legacy.

[hypochondriac]

My response to that would be does it really matter if an individual is subconsciously influenced to do good things in later life? All sorts of things could influence behaviour not just religion. Ultimately if there are people doing acts of kindness all over the place then whether it is influenced by religion or not to my mind is of little consequence. Besides, it would be virtually impossible to measure.

[Frank's cousin]

A few further qualifications for you tpbury.

 

Dawkins is an excellent communicator. He conveys complex concepts really thoroughly and really clearly. But he also carries out a lot of research and background and he wants to tell you all of it to support his conclusion. It's not for the faint of heart. It's a bit like reading a Frank's cousin post actually! (rich coming from me, I know).

 

But seriously, The Selfish Gene focuses more on the biological level of evolution than it does on the societal. Still a good read though.

 

Also, if you haven't read The God Delusion then I'd start there. The only issue I had with it is that I found that Dawkins came across as almost fanatical in his pursuit of putting down religion. But as that was the main point of the book, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

To be fair, he is up against it given the way religion usually gets more air time

[hypochondriac]

I'm still unsure about this subtle indoctrination thing. I went to a catholic secondary school but the whole time I was there I thought it was a load of rubbish, even when I was about 12.

[Frank's cousin]

My response to that would be does it really matter if an individual is subconsciously influenced to do good things in later life? All sorts of things could influence behaviour not just religion. Ultimately if there are people doing acts of kindness all over the place then whether it is influenced by religion or not to my mind is of little consequence. Besides, it would be virtually impossible to measure.

 

All true, and decent folk doing decent things as a result of religion can not be argued against - any power for good is a good thing - but I guess the question is about whether we can make a free choice if we have the legacy of a religeous teaching or is it always in the back of your mind?

[View From The Top]

Totally mad I am sure but why do the COE schools outperform other schools and why is it so difficult to get your children into them?

 

They don't.

 

HTH.

[Frank's cousin]

I'm still unsure about this subtle indoctrination thing. I went to a catholic secondary school but the whole time I was there I thought it was a load of rubbish, even when I was about 12.

 

Fair enough - perhaps I am not the best to explain it, but Dawkins Meme thoeries do a good job - we need to seperate out whteher the outcome is good or bad from whether its right that a true free choice is possible or not if we have that legacy - most kids see miracles and the bunkum stories for what they are thats teh easy bit, its the concept of the devine being that may or may not be able to influence us even if the chance of existnece is 0.9 x 10 (power 64 or whatever) - does it ever really go away?

[View From The Top]

What are you proposing, to confiscate bibles and Korans from family homes. You really don't believe that in our free society people cannot make up their own minds? It seems to me that you do not believe in basic freedoms.

 

Forcing your beliefs onto your kids is wrong, end of.

 

Children should be left to make their own minds up not brainwashed my parents.

 

It would appear that it is you who doesn't believe in extending basic freedoms to children including the freedom of choice.

[JPTCount]

Forcing your beliefs onto your kids is wrong, end of.

 

Children should be left to make their own minds up not brainwashed my parents.

 

It would appear that it is you who doesn't believe in extending basic freedoms to children including the freedom of choice.

 

but what choice do they really have?

 

someone's brainwashing ur kids, may as well make a preemptive strike.

 

imo ppl who ram atheism down ppls throats are as bad as those who try it with religion.

[Frank's cousin]

Forcing your beliefs onto your kids is wrong, end of.

 

Children should be left to make their own minds up not brainwashed my parents.

 

It would appear that it is you who doesn't believe in extending basic freedoms to children including the freedom of choice.

 

Agree with the sentiments VFTT, but this is a clasiic case of a sensitive issue and it goes straight to the fundementals of parents rights as well in bringing their kids up as they see fit so there is aneed to express it all in a more subtle way?

 

It is a paradox for sure - either we believe in the freedom of choice and apply it kids so thay they can make up their minds whne they are able to rationalise it all, or we apply it to parents and assume its their right to bring up their kids within the cultural and religious boundaries that they set for themselves? Can you satisfy both?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

That is an interesting one - but probably less to do with religion and more to do with the demographic of the intake - if you are the kind of parent that that takes a huges interest in your childrens education' date=' to teh poiint where you actually move house and go to church a few times to get you kids into a certain school, chances are the value you place on education has been instilled in our kids - probably a chicken and egg situation, but the 'quality' of the learning environment is enhanced or created by the willingness to learn of the students and less about the issue of it being a 'faith school' (certainly the CoE and Catholic schools)[/quote']

 

So you are more likely to flourish in a learning environment which promotes Christian values? Or are you saying that children who's famillies have a stronger affinity with Christrian values - enough to send them to a COE school outperform those that don't.

[badgerx16]

OK chaps, I have a message for you from an all powerful being that will deliver eternal salvation to your souls. It was written by a mysterious group of people a very long time ago, in an ancient script that nobody but I could read, on golden plates that were buried and whose location was revealed exclusively to me by an angel. Once I had read the plates the angel took the plates away.

So now you all believe me, let's make a new religion and spread the word.

 

( This might be an original idea ).

[niceandfriendly]

Just like you wouldn't call your child "a democrat baby", a "republican baby", a "vegetarian baby", a "conservative baby", you shouldn't call your child a "christian baby", a "muslim baby" etc. But of course as usual, religion gets away with murder (haha, metaphorically and literally!) and parents are allowed to bring their child up to believe whatever nonsense they themselves believe.

 

Ah here we go, here is a short video of Dawkins speaking on this subject, basically saying what I just said but saying it much better.

[hypochondriac]

All true' date=' and decent folk doing decent things as a result of religion can not be argued against - any power for good is a good thing - but I guess the question is about whether we can make a free choice if we have the legacy of a religeous teaching or is it always in the back of your mind?[/quote']

 

Can't say I spend too much of my time worrying about that, life's too short! I just try to be kind to the people in my life, how much of that is down to myself or because I was brought up with Christian parents I have no idea but it honestly doesn't matter to me.

[hypochondriac]

Forcing your beliefs onto your kids is wrong, end of.

I agree. No one said otherwise.

 

Children should be left to make their own minds up not brainwashed my parents.

Again, you have this weird view that every child raised with religious parents are then brainwashed. I would strongly argue that individuals if they are given the choice are able to make their own decisions about a whole range of things including religion. You could argue that being raised with a Dad who supports saints has brainwashed me into becoming a saints fan yet it is really my choice. It's only when religion is involved that this word comes out with the implication being that offspring of religious people are incapable of deciding for themselves. I find that outlook odd.

 

It would appear that it is you who doesn't believe in extending basic freedoms to children including the freedom of choice.

 

​I think you missed the entire point of what he said.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Forcing your beliefs onto your kids is wrong, end of.

 

Children should be left to make their own minds up not brainwashed my parents.

 

It would appear that it is you who doesn't believe in extending basic freedoms to children including the freedom of choice.

 

You clearly are applying the extreme to the mainstream in your argument. Children can think for themselves and do think for themselves, that is because we live in a free society where knowledge is all around you - in your youth did you ever have the good fortune to meet a convent girl? Those that ban the cross at work and want the State to somehow intervene are the real threat to freedom.

[hypochondriac]

Agree with the sentiments VFTT, but this is a clasiic case of a sensitive issue and it goes straight to the fundementals of parents rights as well in bringing their kids up as they see fit so there is aneed to express it all in a more subtle way?

 

It is a paradox for sure - either we believe in the freedom of choice and apply it kids so thay they can make up their minds whne they are able to rationalise it all, or we apply it to parents and assume its their right to bring up their kids within the cultural and religious boundaries that they set for themselves? Can you satisfy both?

 

I realise this is a different point, but practically it would be virtually impossible for a religious person not to include their children in at least some of their practices. Say they go to church every Sunday, it would be pretty impossible to organise someone to look after the children every week for fear that they would attend and then become brainwashed for life. Of course everyone is influenced to some degree by the values of their parents be that how they solve disputes to the values they attach to material possessions etc. I still have yet to meet all these legions of Christian parents that systematically brainwash their children by teaching them about the fires of hell should they step out of line. I don't think they exist and actually I think learning about different religions is not actually a harmful thing.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

They don't.

 

HTH.

 

That is not what I was lead to believe do you have a source?