Not a very good example. Unless you're blinkered by a desire to believe, in an infinite universe of infinite processes turning clay pigeons into real prigeons is no more fanciful and magical than turning water into wine.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Not a very good example. Unless you're blinkered by a desire to believe, in an infinite universe of infinite processes turning clay pigeons into real prigeons is no more fanciful and magical than turning water into wine.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
Oh, come on....
Water turning into wine is an everyday process that people can watch -- water the vines, the vines put the water into the grapes, ferment the grapes, and you get wine. It's a simple parallel, both to people then and people now.
So water to wine is a simple parallel, but life developing over time in an infinite universe in seemingly inert matter is an unreasonable thought? As ffwd pointed out, even the old folk thought that we came from dust.
But my point is a wider one, which is that what seems reasonable to you with your religious pre-conceptions may not seem that reasonable (or any more reasonable than anything else) to folk who don't share your pre-conceptions or who are more skeptical about them.
You don't like Hinduism, so, to you, Hinduism isn't as reasonable as other religious beliefs and so on and so on. What you do with reasonableness, you do with religion.
Subjective notions parading as objective insights may be amusing. But, absent objective proof or insight, subjective notons are still only subjective notions. That applies to religion and the teaching of religion as to anything else.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
No, Hinduism doesn't seem reasonable to me because it fails a principle I learned in science, which my profs called "elegance": a plethora of deities lacks elegance, especially when compared to a single deity who is creator of all.
And any religion which declares human lives to be of different worths merely because of who their parents were is elegant not at all.
As for not liking it, I don't because it lacks elegance and because it bred and continues to breed a total disrespect for the value of human life.
And any religion which declares human lives to be of different worths merely because of who their parents were is elegant not at all.
As for not liking it, I don't because it lacks elegance and because it bred and continues to breed a total disrespect for the value of human life.
So what? Your need to see "elegance" or respect for the value of human life in religious belief is your subjective preference. It just happens not to be the subjective preference of the millions of Hindus in the world.
It tells us nothing about whether your belief is objectively more valid than theirs and it tells us nothing about whether what you belief in is objectively more true than what they believe in.
It looks like, by default at least, you're agreeing with my main thought, which is the rather mundane one that religious belief is subjective and should not hold itself out as objective truth.
A
AngelBoy
Guest
I was answering an analogy that clearly you didn't appreciate
Child Abuse still has a self evident meaning – which could probably be defined as any action (or inaction) which makes Childern less able to function or damages them as independent adults.
From the examples you gave – The lines drawn are to some extent subjective.
I think Smoking and Drinking in their presence is not child abuse – but making them breath your smoke probably is – as is allowing them to consume alcohol or use other highly addictive drugs.
I would personally include both violent movies and video games as a form of child abuse. This is because there have been a number of peer reviewed scientific studies that have shown that these de-sensitize children to violence – in a similar way as having being subjected to violence themselves does.
In the same way - Nudity in front of children is at least unwise – while sexual activity with them is recognised as very detrimental – as is feeding them a wholly inappropriate and unhealthy diet (Junk food - McDonalds etc).
In our childhood we are uniquely vulnerable – we can easily pick up bad ideas then that last the rest of our lives – Junk food is one example you gave of a disastrous epidemic that is severely damaging kids once they become adults.
In fact it looks like the USA is destined to become a nation of “pear shaped” blobs – but pardoxically addicted to worshipping ever more anorexic “celebrities”
Indoctrination into one particular ideology is probably even more damaging than these other forms of “child abuse”.
Unless you think that holding a belief without any proof is a good idea?
Indoctrination clearly would be included in the word “Force” – as this is essentially a coercive process
M
Marbas
Guest
Much like your subjective priciple of 'elegance' leads you to reject Hinduism, my own subjective principle of 'elegance' leads me to reject Christianity: a plethora of books written by many different authors, abitrarily collected together as the 'Word of God', lacks the 'elegance' of a single book, (supposedly) created by a single author (the Quran, for example).
A
AngelBoy
Guest
The theory of "Scientific Elegance" applied to any religion must be the ultimate Oxymoron
As far as I can see your argument is that your particular minority religion is less deluded than the others?
Though cleary has just as little proof as they have.
Even if one religion or athiest ideaology is one day "proved true" - this should not be taught to children as the unquestionable truth.
I do find it totally silly that any one religion could claim that another religion is less elegant or less true.
Do you realise exactly what you are saying? surely there is no justification whatsoever - it might be reasonable to say that I suspect all religions are not true but trying to argue in favour of any particular one is clearly totally unsustainable.
A
AngelBoy
Guest
Hey Marbas -
leaving asside any debate about any particlular religion being true or not - do you think its right to force any idea onto children?
A
AngelBoy
Guest
Howver anyone re-reads what you say ...
The basic arguments are –
Should any belief system be taught to Children as if it was the absolute truth?
Is this actually done in reality? – I think the fact that people in real life overwhelmingly stick with the belief system they were taught as children speaks for itself.
Can anyone argue that there is any other significant factor that affects what children grow up to believe is true - NO
Sometimes people swich religions - but it's very rare
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Posts
- 20,444
- Reaction score
- 19
- Points
- 0
so you are saying that as a fundamentalist athiest, it is imposible for you to change your faith
interesting
is this the absolute truth you were brought up with and were you taught to be so strdent and abusive of people with differing opinions as well?
was this process of conversion you believe in something that you learned?
is it posible for you to ever switch religions in that could you just become a normal athiest who isnt so abuslive to his fellow man?
is the fundamentist part of your faith inherent to you rmakeup?
A
AngelBoy
Guest
No – I don’t claim to be a “Fundamentalist Atheist”
What I am saying is that people tend to be stuck with belief systems if they were indoctrinated with these as children.
As evidence I cite the fact that people grow up to have some absolute beliefs which seem to be very specific to the particular background in which they were raised as children.
Thus a “Sunni” child will grow up dedicated to the destruction of all “Shiite” children. Thou for the rest of us there is almost nothing to distinguish the two Islamic beliefs
Maybe you’ve read “Gulliver’s travels”? - but one story in this was about an almost identical difference in ideology. (between the “Big” and “Little” endians)
.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Posts
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
When I was a kid, going to church meant going with my sister; my parents NEVER went to church. I wondered why until I was 9 or 10--the folks stayed home and had sex til just before we got back from church. I was always at odds with religion, because I was constantly being told that I was "bad" and that I had to go to church to learn to be "good". Why couldn't I be just the way I was? Absolutely, making kids go to church is a form of abuse. If it's not good enough for the adults, then it isn't good enough for the kids, either.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
Making kids go to that sort of church seems to qualify as abuse, yes.
But many churches don't tell you that cheap formula; in fact, any church that actually does is not Christian.
I know a family that doesn't tell the kids they're "bad" as a reason to go to church; for them, it's God's house, and they go there to visit just like they'd go to visit grandma -- except that God's house is a little bit different. I can't see that sort as a kind of abuse.
And now...
to JUB!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
By the way "hi everyone. I'm new."<------- Doesn't it look like our happy little emoticon there is playing a guitar?
AsianDream
PISS LOVER
This does show the bad side of forcing ideas on children.
People do mostly grow up to believe that what they have been taught as children is true – even if there is no real evidence to show this is true..
But it is not just religion – there are many people in China today who accept the ideas taught to them as children as true – so still have a profound belief in communist ideology – even while Chinese society around them is changing.
This may be the same as the various Religious fundamentalists who are trying to fight the progress of ideas within their own countries.
Children should be taught how to evaluate ideas – rather than have some specific ideas forced on them as if they were the truth.
bulge
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Posts
- 6,241
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 0
I agree. I know a guy who married a baptist while he was an anglican. Well, he could not cope with the baptist ideas of his spouse and they had to divorce. The steeling of his soul by religion is a plain crime.
AsianDream
PISS LOVER
You talk about two very similar versions of Christian religion - were the problems they had as the result of indoctrinaton as a child?
AsianDream
PISS LOVER
Re: Is forcing religion on children a form of chil
Interestingly – there is a lot of scientific evidence for a great flood – quite a long time after the end of the last ice age there is geological evidence that the black sea basin was very rapidly flooded in the space of a few years.
As in many cases – verbal stories handed down through many generations of events long before may have found their way into later written stories or religious texts.
I think the central question of this thread is whether parents have a right to impose their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on their children. I would not equate this with abuse – however it does seem in reality to be the main determinant of what these children go on to believe when they are adults.
At the very least this should call into doubt the absolute certainty with which many people hold religious views.
Interestingly – there is a lot of scientific evidence for a great flood – quite a long time after the end of the last ice age there is geological evidence that the black sea basin was very rapidly flooded in the space of a few years.
As in many cases – verbal stories handed down through many generations of events long before may have found their way into later written stories or religious texts.
I think the central question of this thread is whether parents have a right to impose their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on their children. I would not equate this with abuse – however it does seem in reality to be the main determinant of what these children go on to believe when they are adults.
At the very least this should call into doubt the absolute certainty with which many people hold religious views.
This topic reminds me of this thread from politico.
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=2280093
The thread is all about a proposed law by Republican representatives in the US that will amend its Constitution declaring the inviolable sets of the parents rights. In particular, it aims for the continuous rejection of the US on The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. conservative critics of the Convention argues that "Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion"
In light of this news, I guess there is nothing wrong for parents to provide advice and guidelines to children on how to choose their own religious affiliation rather than forcing them to participate into any religious practices.
But that view of mine is more of an ideal rather than a reality. Children have no prior beliefs of what is "right" or "wrong" and much more what groups will they like to affiliate with. And persons perform that function for them.
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=2280093
The thread is all about a proposed law by Republican representatives in the US that will amend its Constitution declaring the inviolable sets of the parents rights. In particular, it aims for the continuous rejection of the US on The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. conservative critics of the Convention argues that "Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion"
In light of this news, I guess there is nothing wrong for parents to provide advice and guidelines to children on how to choose their own religious affiliation rather than forcing them to participate into any religious practices.
But that view of mine is more of an ideal rather than a reality. Children have no prior beliefs of what is "right" or "wrong" and much more what groups will they like to affiliate with. And persons perform that function for them.