Quote:
Originally Posted by atheistwoody
I have to disagree with you
As a child I remember well my teacher telling us the story of jesus like it was fact. We were told to write down our thoughts about why jesus could resist temptation and other shit. I remember being removed from assembley because I refused to say the lords prayer. Children are at the most gullible age of their life and yet the teachers and parents introduce this rubbish to them, they raise them to be good little christians, praying everyday and believing in god without question.
|
There's obviously something wrong with those who would pressure religion on children, but in those cases, it's a generalization to then project a personal dislike/disrespect or to be extremely--and what I would call offensively--critical of religion as a whole. It's the fault of the
individual (teacher, instructor, etc.) for not respecting individuality and pressuring religion, not the fault of religion itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atheistwoody
Your point about people being atheists so they dont have to get up early on a sunday just shows how controlling religion is, like they HAVE TO HAVE some kind of reason to get out of it. Like sunday mornings are MEANT to be a time for talking to yourself in some old cold building.
|
How's religion controlling? I consider myself religion and I don't attend church regularly. Maybe I should, maybe I should feel guilty about it, but just like we've been talking about--is that what my beliefs would tell me, or is that what other people would
want my beliefs to tell me? Religion is individual, religion by itself is not intended to be controlling and it's not. Certain individuals take it upon themselves to make it a very controlling and unpleasant experience and they judge others and require churchly attendance and confession, etc., but that's not
religion. Those are some of the individuals who misrepresent religion. I've encountered more than a few atheists on YouTube and the internet who spout about things they've obviously got no clue about. I bring up a valid point in rebuttal and they make videos full of horrendous, pointless profanity and censor me from replying to their videos again. So just because of some of those unpleasant encounters with a few ignorant and rowdy atheists (who are probably really a misrepresentation of their own principles), should I project the generalization and stereotype of their poor, often juvenile behavior over the atheist community as a whole? No. I shouldn't and I don't. I do my best not to judge, so why is it that others have such a hard time doing that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by atheistwoody
Teaching children about religion is wrong. If they want to learn it then thats fine, if they chose to become christians when they are old enough to understand it all then thats fine too. But it should not be part of their education.
|
That's ridiculous. It's not
wrong to teach children that people practice religion. There's nothing wrong with teaching children about religion. Omitting religion from world history curriculum would take out a
huge chunk of all that's happened and our children would be less experienced and frankly dumber because of it. I agree that
pressuring a religion or expressing favoritism is irritating and wrong, just as
pressuring faithlessness and expressing favoritism for that is wrong, but to teach about both is to teach about
humanity, it's to teach about human culture, it teaches human history, and there's no reason to eliminate religion from the curriculum. School curriculum covers many different religions, it covers the history, culture, etc., but teachers are forbidden from expressing preference or pressuring any religion or religion in general. What you're suggesting is all-controlling and absurd. You're suggesting excluding parts of human culture and history from school curriculum simply because you're under the impression that it's corrupting youth. If that's the case, the
individuals are the ones to be held responsible, not the teachers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atheistwoody
How can we teach things to our kids that we have no proof is real. We may as well sit them down and say that middle-earth is real, and ask them how Aragorn was able to not be affected by the ring. Its the same thing, FICTION.
|
Define "proof." I hear so many people talking so much about this "proof," but it seems many people don't understand it. You realize that reality itself is not objectively seen by any one person, do you not? We all see this world through individual sets of eyes which transmit the signals to individual minds, how can anyone possibly be able to universally define a "reality" or "prove" any one thing? That's extremely abstract, I realize, but even to get more concrete for you,
science itself refutes any "proven" standard. By scientific standards even, there's no such thing as "proven fact." Here, read this:
Arachnoid.com What is Science - Psychology Section
Taken from
WHAT IS SCIENCE? - Arachnoid.com/psychology:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by arachnoid.com/psychology
The point here is that legal evidence is not remotely scientific evidence. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn't use sloppy evidentiary standards like “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and scientific theories never become facts. This is why the oft-heard expression “proven scientific fact” is never appropriate – it only reflects the scientific ignorance of the speaker. Scientific theories are always theories, they never become the final and only explanation for a given phenomenon.
|
Science itself can't prove theories that are hypothesized
through science, so what exactly equates "proof" to you, when science itself fails to meet the same standards religion does? Science and religion are both practical for their own reasons, but neither can be considered "real" or "concrete," because by their own standards, neither can ever be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's illogical. They both play the same guessing game, revealing more questions than answers, and you're suggesting the elimination of one, simply because you think it seems more "unrealistic" than the other. You'd be mistaken.