Children must be taught religions

[spidergoat]

Where do they come from?

Us and our courage to assert them.

 

[gmilam]

By the ay there is no contrary evidence to God’s existence.

There is just as much contrary evidence as there is evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

Faith is not belief without evidence.

Of course they claim they have evidence, which consists of stories in a book. Or miracles which cannot be confirmed, or personal revelations which similarly cannot be confirmed. When you assert that the religious embrace reason, are these the reasons? Because they are all flawed, and I would be happy to point out why.

I do recognize that there is religious Buddhism, which is full of superstition and unsupported nonsense, but that isn't the core. Buddhism insists on a scientific approach, try it as an experiment and see what happens.

Dawkins or... Dan Barker ...insist that you believe God doesn’t exist.

Not on faith. They question the logic of existing arguments for God. If there is no logical argument for God, then there probably isn't a God, so it would be unreasonable to believe in it.

How can I sit down with the Theologica Suma or Des Cartes Meditations and come to the conclusion that they never allowed the question of God’s existence to enter their minds?

I don't know, because you are as delusional as they were? I know they ask the questions and pretend to seek knowledge, but they start with a preordained conclusion and work backwards.

Buddhism is a Religion. People like you call it a Philosophy to bypass the Theism objectiosn and because westerners who don’t know the first thing about Buddhism have been taught ato appreciate the idea of it.

I practiced Buddhism for 6 years. I know it's often considered a religion, and practiced that way by the layman, but at it's core it's an experiment in consciousness.

You know, the word “Faith” doesn’t have a special religious definition...

I say it does.

"Faith is believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."
- Voltaire

 

[kx000]

Faith is active.

 

[ZAV]

sPIDERGOAT-

Of course they claim they have evidence, which consists of stories in a book. Or miracles which cannot be confirmed, or personal revelations which similarly cannot be confirmed. When you assert that the religious embrace reason, are these the reasons? Because they are all flawed, and I would be happy to point out why.

You see, this is why I know that you haven’t spent any Time at all studying Religion. For one thing, you still make a distinction between Religious people and Atheists, and for another you persist in a Hypocrisy that is invisible to you. I mean sure, Atheists message boards, chat rooms, books by Prometheus Press or written by Richard Dawkins, and other outlets all say Religious people offer no real Evidence and its nothing but stories in a book or personal feelings, but how do I take anyone seriously that said this right after I pointed to seminal Philosophical figures like Aquinas or Des Carte who didn’t?

What you are presenting is a Caricature, not a Reality of “the Religious”. The idea of Religious people being uninformed as to what constitutes Real Evidence and never submitting their beliefs to any sort of critical examination is a staple in the Modern Atheist Movement and is a Tried and True old cobbler to pull out but its really not True.


You can’t read Rene Des carte and say that he just believed because of Personal Revelations or because he had stories in a book. The same applies to Paul Tillich, or even Rowan Williams. Your’ claim is utterly baseless.

Meanwhile, dogma that teaches you that Religion is all nonsense and that Religious people can never have real reasons to believe what they do is believed blindly. You never subject your own beliefs to any critical examination, assured in the Truth of them based on the word of other Atheists and the expounding of the benefits of Reason over Religion. You never question if the statements made by such Atheists or beelived by you and now expounded by you are valid.

Should I start linking to Amazon and showing you book Titles where “Religious people” do offer such evidence? I doubt you’d read the books and if you did it’d not do much as you want to believe in your own Religion, er, “Non-Religious Philosophy”, but that too is what you condemn. You Are so certain of your own beliefs you never allow them to be questioned, and you never subjected them to Critical Scrutiny.


You, sir, are no Rene Des Carte.

I do recognize that there is religious Buddhism, which is full of superstition and unsupported nonsense, but that isn't the core. Buddhism insists on a scientific approach, try it as an experiment and see what happens.

You’ve just proven my point further. To you “Religion” is “Belief in gods and supernatural beings”, so you misdefine the word. You then claim Buddhism is Scientific at its core. You obviously don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism sicne it began in the East before Science was created in Europe by Christians.

Incidentally, you can say the same thing about Christianity. If you remove the Miracles and God and all, you still have the core ethical Teachings of Jesus. So what? You still would condemn Christianity. Buddhism is not a simple life Philosophy and only an ignorant westerner who was never exposed to it would be able to say it was.

Not on faith. They question the logic of existing arguments for God.

So do Christians. I mean, Paul Tillich made his Career out of it and he was one of the leading Theologians of the 20th Century. Am I suppose to think that he didn’t exist? Or maybe I should pretend his books simply said “Believe in God folks, yup, have faith. No evidence required”. I mean, really, its not like you’ve read anything on Buddhism by actual Buddhists, and you haven’t really studies Theology either. The idea that Religious people never question the existence of God is asinine absurdity. ( And again, being Religious is not the same as belief in God. Atheism is not really the same as non-religion. Its rather tiresome to repeat, but it seems it doesn’t sink in)

If there is no logical argument for God, then there probably isn't a God, so it would be unreasonable to believe in it.

But there are several Logical arguments for God’s existence, ranging from Aquinas ( No Dawkins did not defeat them, Dawkins didn’t even understand them) to Des Carte ( Works are Public domain and online by the way) to Tillich to Flew. Kurt Gödel even presented a Mathematical argument for God’s existence.

I know its another tenet of your Religious Faith to say that there is no evidence for God and no Logically arguments exist, but I won’t pretend that none have ever been advanced just to make you feel better.

I don't know, because you are as delusional as they were? I know they ask the questions and pretend to seek knowledge, but they start with a preordained conclusion and work backwards.

Which Atheists never do, nope. Atheists are 100% intellectually honest, that’s why they are Atherists. Its also good you identified me as Delusional. Yes the conversation really advances from there. We now know that anyone who does not reach the Logical conclusion that God doesn’t exist is delusional, and if they do claim to use Logic and Reason and claim to ask about God’s existence, and remain convince of God’s existence, they never really tried and began with presuppositions. Of course no Atheist ever asks these questions and ends up believing in God, and all people who start as Atheists if they are Logical must end up Atheists again if they ask them.


Now back to planet Reality. Calling someone Delusional for not agreeing with you is not valid argumentation. Its another Reason I have no respect for Dawkins, and people like you who follow him. You stalwart refuse to accept the possibility that omeone can bd both Sane and intellectually honest yet arrive at a differing conclusion. How on earth can anyone have a dialogue with another party when that party insists that everyone agree that he is Right?

The real Irony is, of course, that you are guilty of what you bash “Religious people” of. You start with the presupposition that Atheism is True, and never honestly seek the Truth. The only thing you are interest in is proving your own Atheistic conclusions.

How does that differ from what you claim “Religious people” do?

I practiced Buddhism for 6 years. I know it's often considered a religion, and practiced that way by the layman, but at it's core it's an experiment in consciousness.

Christianity is not a Religion. Christianity is a Relationship with your Creator and a way of Life. Islam is not a Religion, it is a Spiritual exercise in overcoming Evil. Judaism is not a Religion; it’s a Culture and a way to connect to the world.


I can go on and on, but its stupid. Even though you want to live in the delusional fantasy that Religion can have nothing to do with Reality and thus want to pretend that since Buddhism has some benefit it must not be Religion at its core doesn’t change the fact that Religion always ties into the Real World and ho its understood and Buddhism’s distinction is not really a distinction. All Religions offer the adherents practical benefit of some sort and all of them speak to the Human Condition in some way.

I say it does.

Then prove it. Proved that Religious Writers have always connotated Faith differently than the general populace and that they meant “Belief without Evidence”; Because if the actual writers did not mean to convey “Belief without evidence” then you saying Faith means belief without Evidence is not convincing.

The only thing you have convinced me of is that you praise reason whilst simultaneously disregarding its use. Simply defining Faith as “Belief without Evidence’ and demanding everyone else accept this definition as if it’s the only one the word has ever known, and projecting this onto the whole of History simply because you choose to believe that Religious people are Delusional for using Faith instead of reason and in order to support the Paradigm of the Modern Atheists like Dawkins doesn’t make you come across as a deep thinker who is honest. You are right here before our eyes rejecting a claim based simply on the fact that it undermines your argument. You don’t look at facts to find Truth, you simply try to conform everything to your own predetermined conclusions.


It is evident when you read the Bible that the Authors did not mean “Belief without Evidence” each Time they used the word, an it is equally apparent for latter generations. Many says things like “We have seen the Evidence of our Faith” or “Blessed is he who has seen, and had Faith”. Augustine said that we have Faith precisely because we are Rational and said Faith must derive from Reason. Its apparent that Augustine didn’t mean “Belief without Evidence”. No one who reads his Confessions or the City of God could feasibly make this argument.


I will not accept the definition of Faith as belief without Evidence when it comes to Religion because that is wrong. If you object, then just answer this: On what real, valid basis do you have to make the claim that the Definition of Faith, when speaking of Religion, is belief without Evidence then?

"Faith is believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."
- Voltaire

Quoting Voltaire is meaningless. It doesn’t prove your point.

 

[ZAV]

Oh, by the way, Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins do ask you to believe, on “Faith’ that God doesn’t exist. ALL OF THE Logical arguments they make are so poor that even fellow Atheists have shot them down. David orr for instance highly Criticised Dawkins for his lack of True understanding of the Aquinian Arguments. All Dawkins said in reply was that you didn’t need to study Leprochaunology to know Leprechauns don’t exist. Barkers arguments are equally shoddy. Most of Barkers arguments rest on Emotional appeal, such as “See what a big dumb evil jerk God is? Man I hate him, or would if hwe was real. Good thing God doesn’t exist right?”

Neither Barker nor Dawkins present actual Logic in their arguments. There arguments seem logical and Rational only if you buy into the mythology the modern Atheist trend has developed of “reason over Religion’ that posits its spokesmen As ultimately advocates of reason, Logic, and Freethought as opposed to unthinking religious Automatons. But just declaring yourself to be guided by Logic doesn’t mean your arguments are Logical.

None of their arguments are truly effective.

 

[ZAV]

Before its stated, I don't have as problem with Atheism, I have a problem with the hubris some modern Atheists have and the assumption that simply declarign your arguments Atheistic makes them somehow superior to the Apologwist arguments they condemn. Its obvious to all that Atheists liek that are simply arguing for Atheism no matter wha and arn't willing to examine thir arguments for acrtual merit. They rely on their audience acceptign that they are Logical simply because they are Atheistic.

Bad arguments from Atheists don't become good just becaue an Atheist says them in the name of advancing Mankind by reason, Logic and Science.

 

[Ghostintheshell]

Religion has shaped the world around us for good or ill. I would definitely advocate the teaching of religions (objectively), they are very important in a historical sense and as a way to understand how humans think; how they evolved over time morally and spiritually.

 

[The Esotericist]

You’ve just proven my point further. To you “Religion” is “Belief in gods and supernatural beings”, so you misdefine the word. You then claim Buddhism is Scientific at its core. You obviously don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism sicne it began in the East before Science was created in Europe by Christians.

Incidentally, you can say the same thing about Christianity. If you remove the Miracles and God and all, you still have the core ethical Teachings of Jesus. So what? You still would condemn Christianity. Buddhism is not a simple life Philosophy and only an ignorant westerner who was never exposed to it would be able to say it was.

Excellent point.

The Jefferson Bible
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Extracted From The Four Gospels
Originally Compiled by
Thomas Jefferson

 

[The Esotericist]

Religion has shaped the world around us for good or ill. I would definitely advocate the teaching of religions (objectively), they are very important in a historical sense and as a way to understand how humans think; how they evolved over time morally and spiritually.

Ahhh. . . but there's the rub. They cannot be taught objectively. In order for the State to assume total control over the citizens lives, it must necessarily destroy religion and people's belief in a higher source of consciousness.

 

[gmilam]

Ahhh. . . but there's the rub. They cannot be taught objectively. In order for the State to assume total control over the citizens lives, it must necessarily destroy religion and people's belief in a higher source of consciousness.

Or usurp people's belief... Mitt Romney is telling me right now that he wants to "save the soul" of the country. :bugeye:

 

[The Esotericist]

Before its stated, I don't have as problem with Atheism, I have a problem with the hubris some modern Atheists have and the assumption that simply declarign your arguments Atheistic makes them somehow superior to the Apologwist arguments they condemn. Its obvious to all that Atheists liek that are simply arguing for Atheism no matter wha and arn't willing to examine thir arguments for acrtual merit. They rely on their audience acceptign that they are Logical simply because they are Atheistic.

Bad arguments from Atheists don't become good just becaue an Atheist says them in the name of advancing Mankind by reason, Logic and Science.

I don't have a problem with Atheism either. What I have a problem with, is the public schools pushing Atheism as the only reasonable path for an intelligent citizenry upon our children. Although it seems at prima facie that the schools are Christian in their nature, the way literature, history, science, and all other academic thought is taught, is it clearly spiritually devoid, the emphasis being placed on materialism and the corporatization of the individual as a human resource. The natural rights of humankind are left out of the picture.

"Not only does school prepare us to submit to the trivialized, demeaning, dull, and unfulfilling jobs that dominate our economy to the present time, not only does it prepare us to be modern producers, it equally prepares us to be modern consumers. Consider Gatto's description:

Schools train individuals to respond as a mass. Boys and girls are drilled in being bored, frightened, envious, emotionally needy, generally incomplete. A successful mass production economy requires such a clientele. A small business, small farm economy like that of the Amish requires individual competence, thoughtfulness, compassion, and universal participation; our own requires a managed mass of leveled, spiritless, anxious, familyless, friendless, godless, and obedient people who believe the difference between "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" is worth arguing about.

The consumer model is written into the very foundations of the modern classroom. Gatto writes: "Schools build national wealth by tearing down personal sovereignty, morality, and family life." These things are precisely the social and spiritual capital whose conversion into money was discussed in Chapter Four. It is not just that the broken and stupefied child is unable to stand up for himself in the workplace or to resist his role as a standardized cog in the vast automaton of industrial society; it is that relationships themselves, and all the previously non-monetized functions and exchanges associated with them, have been objectified, depersonalized, and commoditized. When the autonomous relationships (social and spiritual) that define our humanity are stripped away, we naturally becomes consumers of them. When self-directed learning through reading is replaced by programmed teacher instruction—the dishing out of a curriculum—we become consumers and not producers of knowledge, which is reduced to measurable "information". Thus we instill in our children not only obedience—tell me what to do—but also intellectual dependency, the reliance on authority for truth. What is the difference between getting truth from books and getting truth from teacher? Reading books as part of a personal search for knowledge does not make one a mere consumer, because the search is self-directed and the information subject to independent, uncoerced selection and judgment. In school quite the opposite holds: the truth—the right answers—has already been pre-selected and pre-judged by the authorities, and the students are to accept it—are coerced into accepting it (at least to the extent that exams, grades, detentions, "permanent records" and so on are effective instruments of reward and punishment).

In other words, school is an instrument of alienation. It alienates children from their families, not only by removing them physically but by replacing and professionalizing a traditionally important sphere of interaction: education. It alienates children from communities, segregating them by age, inducing competition among them, isolating them from adult life, and feeding them a curriculum determined by distant experts. (The community-breaking function of school is especially strong after 100 years of school consolidation and state-sponsored standardization of curricula). It alienates children from nature and the outdoors, of course, simply by keeping them inside all day—surely an unprecedented condition of childhood until the last century. It alienates children from real experience by substituting for it games, simulations, and lessons, in which everything they do is, after all, only in a classroom, without real consequences, and terminating as soon as the bell rings for the next class. But most importantly, school alienates children from themselves: their own natural curiosity, inner motivation, self-reliance, and self-confidence. As Ivan Illich puts it, "Rich and poor alike depend on schools and hospitals which guide their lives, form their world view, and define for them what it legitimate and what is not. Both view doctoring oneself as irresponsible, learning on one's own as unreliable, and community organization, when not paid for by those in authority, as a form of aggression or subversion. For both groups the reliance on institutional treatment renders independent accomplishment suspect."[28] "

http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter5-6.php

Primary Source:

Just one page. . . .

School As Religion​

Nothing about school is what it seems, not even boredom. To show you what I mean is the burden of this long essay. My book represents a try at arranging my own thoughts in order to figure out what fifty years of classroom confinement (as student and teacher) add up to for me. You’ll encounter a great deal of speculative history here. This is a personal investigation of why school is a dangerous place. It’s not so much that anyone there sets out to hurt children; more that all of us associated with the institution are stuck like flies in the same great web your kids are. We buzz frantically to cover our own panic but have little power to help smaller flies.

Looking backward on a thirty-year teaching career full of rewards and prizes, somehow I can’t completely believe that I spent my time on earth institutionalized; I can’t believe that centralized schooling is allowed to exist at all as a gigantic indoctrination and sorting machine, robbing people of their children. Did it really happen? Was this my life? God help me.

School is a religion. Without understanding the holy mission aspect you’re certain to misperceive what takes place as a result of human stupidity or venality or even class warfare. All are present in the equation, it’s just that none of these matter very much—even without them school would move in the same direction. Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed statement of 1897 gives you a clue to the zeitgeist:

Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven.

What is "proper" social order? What does "right" social growth look like? If you don’t know you’re like me, not like John Dewey who did, or the Rockefellers, his patrons, who did, too.

Somehow out of the industrial confusion which followed the Civil War, powerful men and dreamers became certain what kind of social order America needed, one very like the British system we had escaped a hundred years earlier. This realization didn’t arise as a product of public debate as it should have in a democracy, but as a distillation of private discussion. Their ideas contradicted the original American charter but that didn’t disturb them. They had a stupendous goal in mind—the rationalization of everything. The end of unpredictable history; its transformation into dependable order.

From mid-century onwards certain utopian schemes to retard maturity in the interests of a greater good were put into play, following roughly the blueprint Rousseau laid down in the book Emile. At least rhetorically. The first goal, to be reached in stages, was an orderly, scientifically managed society, one in which the best people would make the decisions, unhampered by democratic tradition. After that, human breeding, the evolutionary destiny of the species, would be in reach. Universal institutionalized formal forced schooling was the prescription, extending the dependency of the young well into what had traditionally been early adult life. Individuals would be prevented from taking up important work until a relatively advanced age. Maturity was to be retarded.

During the post-Civil War period, childhood was extended about four years. Later, a special label was created to describe very old children. It was called adolescence, a phenomenon hitherto unknown to the human race. The infantilization of young people didn’t stop at the beginning of the twentieth century; child labor laws were extended to cover more and more kinds of work, the age of school leaving set higher and higher. The greatest victory for this utopian project was making school the only avenue to certain occupations. The intention was ultimately to draw all work into the school net. By the 1950s it wasn’t unusual to find graduate students well into their thirties, running errands, waiting to start their lives.

 

[keith1]

Immersion in culture and religion go hand in hand, starting, and pretty much nearly completed in the home, when the child is old enough to sit and ponder the family stories by the hearth, or sit in front of the TV and ponder the different fabric softeners.

 

[river]

I look at this thread from a different perspective

to learn about religions is about really learning about our past

our past before A.D

because the A.D. is ALL based on the B.C.E.

the thing is though " children " ?

you have to have very balanced parents to introduce this idea to young childern

are you balanced enough to do this ? that means you have to catch yourself being unblanced at times , parents , can you do this ?

after all childern trust their parents more than anybody , can they trust you , to be balanced and to have the right to come to their own conclusion

and after their conclusion have a sound discussion with their parents about their conclusion

 

[The Esotericist]

Or usurp people's belief... Mitt Romney is telling me right now that he wants to "save the soul" of the country. :bugeye:

The only way he can do that is to get rid of the Department of Education. . and compulsory schooling along with the Federal Reserve, the FCC, and several other departments. . . I don't think he is one of the candidates that said they would do that.

If you check out who is funding his campaign, they are the identical donors as Obama's. His policies will be identical, except for cosmetic surface policies. Well. . . plus he'll do a lot more slashing of social programs.

Other than that, his policies, both his economic, and foreign policies? Nothing will change.

 

[Ghostintheshell]

Mmmm, yes. I had forgotten the practicality of teaching anything "objectively", especially a topic such as religion... I guess it would be possible by getting a proponent of each religion to come in and teach about their religion all in equal time-slots. That way you could maybe achieve some kind of gestalt objectivity borne from observation of many subjective views. That way belief doesnt have to be destroyed or usurped; the info is given in equal measures and the pupils can formulate their own ideas. Ah, to live in an ideal world...

 

[gmilam]

The only way he can do that is to get rid of the Department of Education. . and compulsory schooling along with the Federal Reserve, the FCC, and several other departments. . . I don't think he is one of the candidates that said they would do that.

If you check out who is funding his campaign, they are the identical donors as Obama's. His policies will be identical, except for cosmetic surface policies. Well. . . plus he'll do a lot more slashing of social programs.

Other than that, his policies, both his economic, and foreign policies? Nothing will change.

I don't believe you.

I live in Texas. The science class/creationist/"intelligent design" battle is not over.

http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-science-education-texas-004710
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html

 

[river]

I don't believe you. I live in Texas. The science class/creationist/"intelligent design" battle is not over. http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-science-education-texas-004710 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html

understand the dilema

the problem may well be solved by the looking into our B.C.E. history

I know it may seem unrelated at first , but its not , ( I know I have done so , its more complicated than you know , than most know ) investigate

it is important , really it is

mean while science nor religion really knows the truth

 

[aaqucnaona]

Oh, by the way, Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins do ask you to believe, on “Faith’ that God doesn’t exist. ALL OF THE Logical arguments they make are so poor that even fellow Atheists have shot them down. David orr for instance highly Criticised Dawkins for his lack of True understanding of the Aquinian Arguments. All Dawkins said in reply was that you didn’t need to study Leprochaunology to know Leprechauns don’t exist. Barkers arguments are equally shoddy. Most of Barkers arguments rest on Emotional appeal, such as “See what a big dumb evil jerk God is? Man I hate him, or would if hwe was real. Good thing God doesn’t exist right?”

Neither Barker nor Dawkins present actual Logic in their arguments. There arguments seem logical and Rational only if you buy into the mythology the modern Atheist trend has developed of “reason over Religion’ that posits its spokesmen As ultimately advocates of reason, Logic, and Freethought as opposed to unthinking religious Automatons. But just declaring yourself to be guided by Logic doesn’t mean your arguments are Logical.

None of their arguments are truly effective.

Have you actually read their books without trying to prove them idiots?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Before its stated, I don't have as problem with Atheism, I have a problem with the hubris some modern Atheists have and the assumption that simply declarign your arguments Atheistic makes them somehow superior to the Apologwist arguments they condemn. Its obvious to all that Atheists liek that are simply arguing for Atheism no matter wha and arn't willing to examine thir arguments for acrtual merit. They rely on their audience acceptign that they are Logical simply because they are Atheistic.

Bad arguments from Atheists don't become good just becaue an Atheist says them in the name of advancing Mankind by reason, Logic and Science.

Gloated pride is bad, no matter what. I wonder if you would turn that around and condemn televangelists and creationists.