Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 They don't. HTH. I found this. It would suggest you are wrong. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2058815 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 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. That is indeed fine if they are all treted as equally 'valid' - but should also I guess include the concept that there might be no god for balance? This is kind of a philosophical issue rarher than a practical one - There are some that 'brainwash for sure' but small numbers - the point I am trying to make is that even wher the teachings are balanced and fair with a normal say 'Christian' environment - does the fact that the early influence of subtle religeous values mean it makes later choices less 'free' - is there a legacy form that teaching/environment that will always be around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 That is indeed fine if they are all treted as equally 'valid' - but should also I guess include the concept that there might be no god for balance? This is kind of a philosophical issue rarher than a practical one - There are some that 'brainwash for sure' but small numbers - the point I am trying to make is that even wher the teachings are balanced and fair with a normal say 'Christian' environment - does the fact that the early influence of subtle religeous values mean it makes later choices less 'free' - is there a legacy form that teaching/environment that will always be around? Quite possible, but I'm not sure I actually care even if there is. I mean there is a legacy from all sorts of teachings and environments in life and religion is just one small part of that. What actually matters is proper parenting be that in an atheist or christian household which should allow their child to make choices for themselves when they are older even if they have been influenced in whatever way by the choices of their parents (but then that is the same for any sort of future beliefs.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 (edited) I think there is broad agreement here on some of these issues. Forcing children to believe something unquestionably is clearly wrong. Depriving children of access to learn about other religions including the theory of evolution etc is also wrong. To my mind, there is nothing wrong with taking your child to church every week, explaining to them what you as parents believe and then giving them the toold necessary to be able to make their own choices. That doesn't fit with what my definition of 'brainwashing' is to any degree. Edited 22 August, 2012 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 I think there is broad agreement here on some of these issues. Forcing children to believe something unquestionably is clearly wrong. Depriving children of access to learn about other religions and including the theory of evolution etc is also wrong. To my mind, there is nothing wrong with taking your child to church every week, explaining to them what you as parents believe and then giving them the toold necessary to be able to make their own choices. That doesn't fit with what my definition of 'brainwashing' is to any degree. Fair point - but the if we take the Dawkins approach (which I have to say does make a lot of sense to me) is that you DO need to ensure that when teaching say the issues GOd and Evolution that you assign the correct level of credibilty to each - based on the evidence that supports the 'theory'. there is a huge amount of evidence that supports evilution, but none that supports the existence of God and that should be explained - because what we are in effct teaching is that its Ok to believe in something that has no eveidence to support it and its its equal to something that has huge amounts of evidence to support it. One leads to opinion , the other INFORMED opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Fair point - but the if we take the Dawkins approach (which I have to say does make a lot of sense to me) is that you DO need to ensure that when teaching say the issues GOd and Evolution that you assign the correct level of credibilty to each - based on the evidence that supports the 'theory'. there is a huge amount of evidence that supports evilution' date=' but none that supports the existence of God and that should be explained - because what we are in effct teaching is that its Ok to believe in something that has no eveidence to support it and its its equal to something that has huge amounts of evidence to support it. One leads to opinion , the other INFORMED opinion.[/quote'] With due respect Frank, you are not in a position to comment on the spiritual evidence that those with a strong faith would tell you about. That would make you uninformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 With due respect Frank, you are not in a position to comment on the spiritual evidence that those with a strong faith would tell you about. That would make you uninformed. With all due respect, I am not sure your definition of 'evidence' would match mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 With all due respect' date=' I am not sure your definition of 'evidence' would match mine.[/quote'] So you would ignore the key factor behind why people maintain their faith? Have you done a ouija board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Fair point - but the if we take the Dawkins approach (which I have to say does make a lot of sense to me) is that you DO need to ensure that when teaching say the issues GOd and Evolution that you assign the correct level of credibilty to each - based on the evidence that supports the 'theory'. there is a huge amount of evidence that supports evilution' date=' but none that supports the existence of God and that should be explained - because what we are in effct teaching is that its Ok to believe in something that has no eveidence to support it and its its equal to something that has huge amounts of evidence to support it. One leads to opinion , the other INFORMED opinion.[/quote'] But again, that suggests that children are incapable of working this out for themselves. I am an adult and perfectly aware of the available evidence for both religion and evolution. Going to church didn't somehow blind me from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 So you would ignore the key factor behind why people maintain their faith? Have you done a ouija board? No have not done a ouija board which you do know started as a palour game dont you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 I don't think there is much merit in a religious person having an argument with a non religious person about the lack of evidence. Faith is after all the most fundamental component of Christianity (and I suspect the area that most atheists have difficulty with) so there will never be agreement. My stance is to question the actual real 'damage' that Christian parents do to their child by taking them to church every week. I simply don't believe there is such a thing as brainwashing in this circumstance. I am sure there are extreme examples but no doubt a small minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 But again, that suggests that children are incapable of working this out for themselves. I am an adult and perfectly aware of the available evidence for both religion and evolution. Going to church didn't somehow blind me from this. BUt Hypo, we are not talking about your personal experience, but the philosophical issue here - I would like Sergei to explain if possible what he understands with respect to evidence and whether he feels confident that there is any for the existance of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 No have not done a ouija board which you do know started as a palour game dont you? Its not fifteen to one Frank. If you ever do a Ouija board you will see that it undoubtedly works and as far as I can see there is no evidence as to why it works. I used to find the process rather spooky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 BUt Hypo' date=' we are not talking about your personal experience, but the philosophical issue here - I would like Sergei to explain if possible what he understands with respect to evidence and whether he feels confident that there is any for the existance of God?[/quote'] Faith is the belief in the existence of god without evidence. I'm not supporting it but that is what it is and why atheists will never agree with Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Its not fifteen to one Frank. If you ever do a Ouija board you will see that it undoubtedly works and as far as I can see there is no evidence as to why it works. I used to find the process rather spooky. It was more than just a parlour game, it was pretty much as popular and mainstream as connect 4!...shocking really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Faith is the belief in the existence of god without evidence. I'm not supporting it but that is what it is and why atheists will never agree with Christians. On a clear night Frank, look up into the sky and tell me that we know what the hell is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 On a clear night Frank, look up into the sky and tell me that we know what the hell is out there. Stars and galaxies.... We dont know for sure what is out there - but the difference between Science and Religion is Science accepts it does not have all the answers, creates hypotheses to test and eventually theories which stack up until new evidence comes along to change that paradigm - Whereas Religion says it KNOWS as a fact that God is 'out there' - omnipotent and all seeing - the 'celestial spy' as Dawkins puts it - based on no evidence whatsoever. Ouija boards/spiritualism - is a 19th century invention - 2 small girls play a game on guests by tapping on the ground, 2 knocks for yes, 1 for know and within weeks they are making money from it and within a generation spiritulism is a big business - a billion dollor business (as they say its always about the money).... sorry Sergei, you will ahve to do better than ouija boards Hypo, true that is a definition of faith and but what is it that compells folk to believe in the first place, what convinces them that there is any truth in the devine, other than what they have been told? - and a perceived 'need' to believe as a 'hope' system - Again Dawkins argues very well that what right do we have to 'hope' - why is it necessary and it seems a strange basis on which to establish a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Its not fifteen to one Frank. If you ever do a Ouija board you will see that it undoubtedly works and as far as I can see there is no evidence as to why it works. I used to find the process rather spooky. Think about it rationally for a moment - in what environment have you experienced this - was it indoors at night with low light, maybe a bit of wind noise from outs side - everyone already 'excited' by the prospect, hairs standing up on back of neck in anticipation? or Outdoors mid day in the sunshine in the park? Humans are very suseptible to fear - adrenalin and the flight or fight response may not be necessary for running away from dangers of wild beast any more but its still very much a behavioural response to teh environment - we still feel on edge when its dark and lonely - even if there is no reason to do so - its hormonal nthing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 I found this. It would suggest you are wrong. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2058815 Wow, That's conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 The problem with most of those of (any) faith is they want to ram their narrow minded ideas down the throats of their kids & others. They cannot accept that others have reached a non faith conclusion, it doesn't compute with them whilst we readily accept that they are welcome to their faith despite us considering bollo.xs. Around us we have a very large group of Plymouth Brethren. Anyone who tells me that the way they indoctrinate their kids, separate them from mainstream society, isn't akin to the way the Taliban treat their kids is talking out of their ar.se. Pray to your God, fill your boots, Fu.ck it, believe in the Tooth Fairy if you want, but don't expect me to take you seriously on any subject as you clearly have issues dealing with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 The problem with most of those of (any) faith is they want to ram their narrow minded ideas down the throats of their kids & others. They cannot accept that others have reached a non faith conclusion, it doesn't compute with them whilst we readily accept that they are welcome to their faith despite us considering bollo.xs. And right there is a line you hear a lot that I utterly disagree with. Whilst I understand that my experiences are not definitive, I have always found it much more heavily weighted in the opposite way. The majority of Christians and those of other faiths I have met are a lot more accepting of other faiths (including atheism) than those without faith. Atheists in general have a problem with religious individuals and cannot accept it. Making statements such as "the majority want to ram their narrow minded ideas down the throats of their kids and others" is just a lie. How much experience do you have with religious people? Around us we have a very large group of Plymouth Brethren. Anyone who tells me that the way they indoctrinate their kids, separate them from mainstream society, isn't akin to the way the Taliban treat their kids is talking out of their arse And how is that then representative of every single family from a religious background? The example you are using appears to be a very very small minority. I don't know enough about them to know if you are correct but if you are then FWIW I agree they should not be indoctrinated. I don't think anyone has tried to argue otherwise. Pray to your God, fill your boots, Fu.ck it, believe in the Tooth Fairy if you want, but don't expect me to take you seriously on any subject as you clearly have issues dealing with reality. So in your mind not only should religious people have their children taken into care, but they are stupid and not to be taken seriously on any subject. What would happen if you agreed with someone but then later found out they were a Christian? Would your view change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 The problem with most of those of (any) faith is they want to ram their narrow minded ideas down the throats of their kids & others. They cannot accept that others have reached a non faith conclusion, it doesn't compute with them whilst we readily accept that they are welcome to their faith despite us considering bollo.xs. Around us we have a very large group of Plymouth Brethren. Anyone who tells me that the way they indoctrinate their kids, separate them from mainstream society, isn't akin to the way the Taliban treat their kids is talking out of their ar.se. Pray to your God, fill your boots, Fu.ck it, believe in the Tooth Fairy if you want, but don't expect me to take you seriously on any subject as you clearly have issues dealing with reality. If you have kids, do they support Southampton? Did you in anyway "indoctrinate" them to the cause? 2 points; "indoctrination" in most religious families would be too strong a term for showing a way. Notice I said "a way", again, in most religions and most religious people in Western society would not enforce "their way". The Taliban is a militant movement, not a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 So in your mind not only should religious people have their children taken into care, but they are stupid and not to be taken seriously on any subject. What would happen if you agreed with someone but then later found out they were a Christian? Would your view change? The problem is Hypo, as alluded to before, that those like me who do not believe, base this on the complete lack of evidence and the irrational nature of belief in general - the fact that there is just as much evidence or rationality in believing in santa as there is in a devine being - so it is very difficult to present our stance without believing those of faith are bonkers, even if we agree that they have a right to hold such a view. Folk can be extremely intelligent and still hold irrational views, whether fear of house spiders or a belief in a devine being - I have met and discussed these things with devout folk who are far more intelligent than I am, far better and more eloquent at debate and have a deep philosophical insight into their own faith than I ever will... but even so they are still unable to present a case for the rational belief in a devine being against all the evidence for why they should not - its their need, which is fair enough - but they have still to explain why they have this need to fulfill them as a person. I do struggle not to show disrespect to those of faith - because as I said when you have no faith, its because you can not see any rational reason for it - thus its a 'crazy' concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 If you have kids, do they support Southampton? Did you in anyway "indoctrinate" them to the cause? 2 points; "indoctrination" in most religious families would be too strong a term for showing a way. Notice I said "a way", again, in most religions and most religious people in Western society would not enforce "their way". The Taliban is a militant movement, not a religion. Not sure it's what you want to hear but I totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 The problem is Hypo, as alluded to before, that those like me who do not believe, base this on the complete lack of evidence and the irrational nature of belief in general - the fact that there is just as much evidence or rationality in believing in santa as there is in a devine being - so it is very difficult to present our stance without believing those of faith are bonkers, even if we agree that they have a right to hold such a view. Folk can be extremely intelligent and still hold irrational views, whether fear of house spiders or a belief in a devine being - I have met and discussed these things with devout folk who are far more intelligent than I am, far better and more eloquent at debate and have a deep philosophical insight into their own faith than I ever will... but even so they are still unable to present a case for the rational belief in a devine being against all the evidence for why they should not - its their need, which is fair enough - but they have still to explain why they have this need to fulfill them as a person. I do struggle not to show disrespect to those of faith - because as I said when you have no faith, its because you can not see any rational reason for it - thus its a 'crazy' concept. Sorry Frank but it's spelt divine. I know it's a small thing but I couldn't let it go on any longer . Out of interest, would your opinion be that someone with a religious belief would not be taken seriously on any other subject? Because I have to say that is an extremely strong response and IMO really rather OTT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Not sure it's what you want to hear but I totally agree. Not at all. Just catching up with this thread and we meet on many matters. *awkward* Oh, is that the time? Time for my afternoon of self-flagellation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Sorry Frank but it's spelt divine. I know it's a small thing but I couldn't let it go on any longer . Out of interest, would your opinion be that someone with a religious belief would not be taken seriously on any other subject? Because I have to say that is an extremely strong response and IMO really rather OTT. No issue on other matters all down to their rational, opinion on whatever subject they are talking about - as alluded to in the post, some of the folk I have spoken with can '**** on my intellect' and have been the source of much knowledge and learning - on a variety of subjects with the exception of the divine () - This for me is logical as I base my opinion on evidence - therefore if those who have faith have knowledge backed by evidence on any subject, their opinion on this must be taken as credible and informative - the only issue is the lack of evidence when they talk of the divine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 ... would add it there are some instances where discussion is perhaps halted early because beliefs transgress or influence their opinion on other subjects - negating the need for evidence... but I tend to avoid those folk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 No issue on other matters all down to their rational' date=' opinion on whatever subject they are talking about - as alluded to in the post, some of the folk I have spoken with can '**** on my intellect' and have been the source of much knowledge and learning - on a variety of subjects with the exception of the divine () - This for me is logical as I base my opinion on evidence - therefore if those who have faith have knowledge backed by evidence on any subject, their opinion on this must be taken as credible and informative - the only issue is the lack of evidence when they talk of the divine[/quote'] Good that's fine then we agree (again.) Of course you have the right to believe someone is irrational for having faith. It's entirely possible to be able to respect someone's right to believe what they like whilst not respecting the religion itself. Basically you disagree with View from the top then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 ... would add it there are some instances where discussion is perhaps halted early because beliefs transgress or influence their opinion on other subjects - negating the need for evidence... but I tend to avoid those folk That is a good point. Perhaps best not to talk about these matters with those types of people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Good that's fine then we agree (again.) Of course you have the right to believe someone is irrational for having faith. It's entirely possible to be able to respect someone's right to believe what they like whilst not respecting the religion itself. Basically you disagree with View from the top then. yes...and a small no... it would be hypocritical and perhaps a lie to say I do not struggle with it - repsect wise - because it becomes such a paradox IMHO, how intelligent, well informed folk with obvious intelect believe in 'mumbo Jumbo' - lets say I strive to respect their views, but it sure is tricky. I can respect people though - even Tories , because only when you respect the opposition, can you demand respect for your opinion. As I say these are nice ideals but as I am only human, there are times when ideals and reality dont quite align. But I try.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 And right there is a line you hear a lot that I utterly disagree with. Whilst I understand that my experiences are not definitive, I have always found it much more heavily weighted in the opposite way. The majority of Christians and those of other faiths I have met are a lot more accepting of other faiths (including atheism) than those without faith. Atheists in general have a problem with religious individuals and cannot accept it. Making statements such as "the majority want to ram their narrow minded ideas down the throats of their kids and others" is just a lie. How much experience do you have with religious people? And how is that then representative of every single family from a religious background? The example you are using appears to be a very very small minority. I don't know enough about them to know if you are correct but if you are then FWIW I agree they should not be indoctrinated. I don't think anyone has tried to argue otherwise. So in your mind not only should religious people have their children taken into care, but they are stupid and not to be taken seriously on any subject. What would happen if you agreed with someone but then later found out they were a Christian? Would your view change? You say that VFTT's viewpoint is narrow and subjective but then appear to base your own views upon your own personal experience of being brought up as a Christian and the various religious people who you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 You say that VFTT's viewpoint is narrow and subjective but then appear to base your own views upon your own personal experience of being brought up as a Christian and the various religious people who you know. How else do you make claims about the majority or religious people if not using your own experience? Unless you know some sort of peer reviewed research that backs up the claims that the majority of religious people indoctrinate their children in the ways that vftt described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 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. How can you ram atheism down someone's throats? It isn't a religion or a set of ideas. Atheism is not a religion and it isn't science either. What people perceive as 'militant atheism' is more often than not just frustrated atheists who happen to be scientists annoyed that their work is being being undermined or hindered by religious groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 How else do you make claims about the majority or religious people if not using your own experience? Unless you know some sort of peer reviewed research that backs up the claims that the majority of religious people indoctrinate their children in the ways that vftt described. So your claims about the majority based on anecdotal evidence is valid but VFTT's aren't? In any case I think VFTT's view are a little over the top and perhaps a bit knowingly provocative but I think you're being very selective. You use your own experience to justify your views but ignore huges swatches of the religious world that are far from tolerant and do actively indoctrinate children into their religious view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 So your claims about the majority based on anecdotal evidence is valid but VFTT's aren't? In any case I think VFTT's view are a little over the top and perhaps a bit knowingly provocative but I think you're being very selective. You use your own experience to justify your views but ignore huges swatches of the religious world that are far from tolerant and do actively indoctrinate children into their religious view. Intolerant religious orders and those that indoctrinate children are wrong. In my opinion it is not as widespread as you believe. Certainly not in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 I think in part it all depends on what we classify as 'indoctrination' - Which sounds heavy but the earlier video of Dawkins look at labelling is perhaps indicative what/why VFTT is so against it - It is typical to assign labels to young kids when in reality they are just kids, but label stick and so does the parental teaching - I think its clear that there is a huge scale here - from downright fundementalism to simple 'christian values' - For me its more about whether whatever is taught has any impact no matter how small on an individual to make a clear choice when rational enough to do so - and how much of a legacy is left from early childhood teachings with respect to belief... If we are advocating a free choice, then IMHO, teaching a child a single belief system is wrong as the good values that most belief systems do advocate can be taught without any association to the belief system. The scale of this eg numbers impacted on obviously varies and in the UK its probably quite limited, but when you think of all those who are brought up in countries that are very stricht on these things or where its ingrained in culture, the numbers are pretty frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 The scale of this eg numbers impacted on obviously varies and in the UK its probably quite limited' date=' but when you think of all those who are brought up in countries that are very stricht on these things or where its ingrained in culture, the numbers are pretty frightening.[/quote'] Exactly - for example millions of children in "Islamic countries" will attend religious schools before puberty and rote-learn the Quran in Arabic - even if that isn't their mother tongue and at the same time will receive instruction as to what it means. They're not cultivating free thinkers who will make their own mind up when they turn 18. Even to a lesser extreme in both Islam and Judaism baby boys are circumcised at birth (no freedom of choice there) and then in all religions there are practices that seek to tie children to that religion for life - Christenings, Confirmations, First Holy Communion, Bar Mitzvahs etc. For instance you'll often hear people say they are Catholic because they've been christened and confirmed even though they never attend Church or actively worship in any other way as adults. Hypo - I think you're generally being a tad naiive. It's great you mix in open-minded circles and that's probably because the UK is generally a very tolerant country but you go to the "Bible-belt" in the US (most of the mid-West and deep South) and proclaim yourself to be an atheist and you will get a frosty reaction at best and lets not forget the religious sectarianism being played out in quite a few countries (eg Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, India). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Wow, That's conclusive. Well its better than you have produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Stars and galaxies.... We dont know for sure what is out there - but the difference between Science and Religion is Science accepts it does not have all the answers, creates hypotheses to test and eventually theories which stack up until new evidence comes along to change that paradigm - Whereas Religion says it KNOWS as a fact that God is 'out there' - omnipotent and all seeing - the 'celestial spy' as Dawkins puts it - based on no evidence whatsoever. Ouija boards/spiritualism - is a 19th century invention - 2 small girls play a game on guests by tapping on the ground, 2 knocks for yes, 1 for know and within weeks they are making money from it and within a generation spiritulism is a big business - a billion dollor business (as they say its always about the money).... sorry Sergei, you will ahve to do better than ouija boards Hypo, true that is a definition of faith and but what is it that compells folk to believe in the first place, what convinces them that there is any truth in the devine, other than what they have been told? - and a perceived 'need' to believe as a 'hope' system - Again Dawkins argues very well that what right do we have to 'hope' - why is it necessary and it seems a strange basis on which to establish a belief. You miss the point Frank. Science cannot disprove Ouija boards but something definately happens when you do one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Exactly - for example millions of children in "Islamic countries" will attend religious schools before puberty and rote-learn the Quran in Arabic - even if that isn't their mother tongue and at the same time will receive instruction as to what it means. They're not cultivating free thinkers who will make their own mind up when they turn 18. Even to a lesser extreme in both Islam and Judaism baby boys are circumcised at birth (no freedom of choice there) and then in all religions there are practices that seek to tie children to that religion for life - Christenings, Confirmations, First Holy Communion, Bar Mitzvahs etc. For instance you'll often hear people say they are Catholic because they've been christened and confirmed even though they never attend Church or actively worship in any other way as adults. Hypo - I think you're generally being a tad naiive. It's great you mix in open-minded circles and that's probably because the UK is generally a very tolerant country but you go to the "Bible-belt" in the US (most of the mid-West and deep South) and proclaim yourself to be an atheist and you will get a frosty reaction at best and lets not forget the religious sectarianism being played out in quite a few countries (eg Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, India). OK so we are talking about the extremes such as the religious parts of the US and certain Islamic countries. In that case I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 You miss the point Frank. Science cannot disprove Ouija boards but something definately happens when you do one. Science has actually come up with some good ideas related to unconscious responses to various situations and stimuli. The explanation of why this happens is very complex and I doubt anyone on here could actually explain it properly unless they are specialised in the field. But of course, it is much easier for people who don't understand how things work to simply say it must be paranormal. I really do hate these gotcha questions though. Picking out one little point that the person present can't explain on the spot and pretending that destroys or casts doubt on hundreds of years of evidence based, peer reviewed, experimentally tested advancements in science. Of course science doesn't know all the answers yet, but it's come a long way so far and has helped us all out at one point or another and it's working on what it doesn't understand. For those who think science does not have the highest levels of procedural integrity, look at how this years 'discovery' of neutrons travelling faster than light was dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Science has actually come up with some good ideas related to unconscious responses to various situations and stimuli. The explanation of why this happens is very complex and I doubt anyone on here could actually explain it properly unless they are specialised in the field. But of course, it is much easier for people who don't understand how things work to simply say it must be paranormal. I really do hate these gotcha questions though. Picking out one little point that the person present can't explain on the spot and pretending that destroys or casts doubt on hundreds of years of evidence based, peer reviewed, experimentally tested advancements in science. Of course science doesn't know all the answers yet, but it's come a long way so far and has helped us all out at one point or another and it's working on what it doesn't understand. For those who think science does not have the highest levels of procedural integrity, look at how this years 'discovery' of neutrons travelling faster than light was dealt with. If you took the time to read my posts, I was pointing out that Frank was refering constantly to science to base his suggestion that God did not exist. I was pointing out that you cannot discount the spiritual side of religion just because it cannot be measured it is obviously a factor. To use an extreme why do you not look up the Toronto blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 You miss the point Frank. Science cannot disprove Ouija boards but something definately happens when you do one. aye you crap your pants and cant explain why? Seriously you are having me on right? ALL of spiritualism WAS INVENTED to make money The history is well documented. This is a FACT that is lost on those determined to hear form the dead and ignored by those who exploit the gullable for cash. The 'creepy' feeling is a normal biological repsonse to the conditions and 'warm up' before these sessions. Sergei, please you sound like a rational bloke, but this is truely nonsense.... if nothing else it is a brilliant demonstration of easily it is to get people to believe in garbage if you market it correctly - Scientology is another one - only invented by Hubbard in the 50s, now a billion dollar business. If you want to read up on the bunkum of spiritulism I can get you some references, seriously I see it as my 'calling' if you like to disseminate the truth on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 You miss the point Frank. Science cannot disprove Ouija boards but something definately happens when you do one. Just to be clear here Segei Gotsmanov, you're referring to the fact that the parties involve move the pointer but that they feel they are not? i.e. some subconscious 'force' makes them do this. Or are you suggesting that the parties involved apply no force and that the movement comes from the 'unknown'. Because if it's the latter then I'd suggest science could certainly provide evidence. If it's the former then I take your point. But I wouldn't immediately leap to the spiritual to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 OK so we are talking about the extremes such as the religious parts of the US and certain Islamic countries. In that case I agree with you. They're only extremes from your point of view in a 21st century Britain. They represent hundreds of millions of people and in many countries are the mainstream. Further they are actually more true to their religions than many in the country than those in this country who pick and choose the bits of religion they like or dislike. From one point of view I've actually got more respect for devout believers e.g. an evangelical Christian who was also a creationist etc. They hold many opinions that I would completely disagree with but they are at least true to their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Derren Brown disproved Ouija boards. I saw it on TV so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Just to be clear here Segei Gotsmanov, you're referring to the fact that the parties involve move the pointer but that they feel they are not? i.e. some subconscious 'force' makes them do this. Or are you suggesting that the parties involved apply no force and that the movement comes from the 'unknown'. Because if it's the latter then I'd suggest science could certainly provide evidence. If it's the former then I take your point. But I wouldn't immediately leap to the spiritual to explain it. I'd venture to suggest that no Ouija board would "work" if no one was allowed to physcially touch any of the items being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 aye you crap your pants and cant explain why? Seriously you are having me on right? ALL of spiritualism WAS INVENTED to make money The history is well documented. This is a FACT that is lost on those determined to hear form the dead and ignored by those who exploit the gullable for cash. The 'creepy' feeling is a normal biological repsonse to the conditions and 'warm up' before these sessions. Sergei, please you sound like a rational bloke, but this is truely nonsense.... if nothing else it is a brilliant demonstration of easily it is to get people to believe in garbage if you market it correctly - Scientology is another one - only invented by Hubbard in the 50s, now a billion dollar business. If you want to read up on the bunkum of spiritulism I can get you some references, seriously I see it as my 'calling' if you like to disseminate the truth on this As an aside my Great Grandfather was a vicar and lost his faith when he lost my great Aunt. He got quite involved with spiritualism and was involved with Arthur Conan Doyle. This was certainly not finacially driven. As for the Ouiija boards I would agree it could be in your subconscious but why then do you need more than two people to operate it. I am not sure you are qualified to argue about it if you have never done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 22 August, 2012 Share Posted 22 August, 2012 Just to be clear here Segei Gotsmanov, you're referring to the fact that the parties involve move the pointer but that they feel they are not? i.e. some subconscious 'force' makes them do this. Or are you suggesting that the parties involved apply no force and that the movement comes from the 'unknown'. Because if it's the latter then I'd suggest science could certainly provide evidence. If it's the former then I take your point. But I wouldn't immediately leap to the spiritual to explain it. When we used to do it you used your little finger on a glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now