WHAT, in God's name

[KittensCake]

So, by definition, you must be attaching an alternative behaviour/belief model. This is unavoidable in the terms you've presented it. if you ban the teaching of religion to children, you are (directly or indirectly) indoctrinating them into atheism/agnosticism.

Again where have I said anything about banning the teaching of religion or information about religion. They will be taught about religion and such at school for example. There's a difference between parents educating them about religion and making a decision for them about their religion, eg. deciding that they will live and be brought up as a Christian.

Again looking back on it I have worded it poorly, I didn't mean literally no religious influence I meant parents not pushing a religion upon them.

 

[Glaucus]

They will be taught about religion and such at school for example.

No there not and it would be impossible to achieve. It takes years to understand religion.

 

[Dolph]

Again where have I said anything about banning the teaching of religion or information about religion. They will be taught about religion and such at school for example. There's a difference between parents educating them about religion and making a decision for them about their religion, eg. deciding that they will live and be brought up as a Christian.

Again looking back on it I have worded it poorly, I didn't mean literally no religious influence I meant parents not pushing a religion upon them.

So you wish to mandate that they are brought up agnostic or atheist. This is pretty black and white here. If you're banning parents from bringing their children up within a religious framework, you're putting them into another belief structure automatically.

Further to that, by dictating the structure the parents can bring their children up in, you're also dictating the structure the parents can live their life by. To me, the very idea of that is abhorrent, whether it's coming from a religious or secular ideal.

Take the example of saying grace. Under your idea, how would practicing christian parents say grace? Would they only be allowed to do it when their children aren't there?

 

[Scrutinize]

Again where have I said anything about banning the teaching of religion or information about religion. They will be taught about religion and such at school for example. There's a difference between parents educating them about religion and making a decision for them about their religion, eg. deciding that they will live and be brought up as a Christian.

So are you now singling out Christianity? It always seems to come down to Christianity. Do you assume that children brought up in Christian homes are unhappy, un-balanced or loonies? Please remember there are many different denominations to Christianity.

 

[MookJong]

Obviously the ideal is that nothing is banned and everyone has freedom of choice. However putting this into practise so that no one influence is stronger than another until the child is old enough to choose is very difficult.

As stated above religions are taught in school but I doubt any child actually understands them at a spiritual level. I know I certainly didn't, because it's something you really have to explore on an individual basis.

 

[KittensCake]

So are you now singling out Christianity? It always seems to come down to Christianity. Do you assume that children brought up in Christian homes are unhappy, un-balanced or loonies? Please remember there are many different denominations to Christianity.

No, that was purely an example. Hence the "eg.".

 

[milkinc13]

just don't go through the bible-belt with "man love, nascar sucks, & western music is rubbish" in a top gear way, or u'll be set upon

 

[Dingo]

How absolutely delicious gentlemen, as I have watched the debate unfold, and as usual, denegrate, into the "fixed attitudes" of the masses!.

Whilst 99% of the posts have, as as expected, conformed to the "norm", I have been delighted to see Mr Squirell take a stand, and he has, of course, been villified, as ignorant, as have I. Huzzar for you, who hold the world in your hand, for you are truly enlightened!!

It is with regret that I "pop your bubble", and have been branded "ignorant" by many, that I ask the question..........so how many of you so called "intellectuals". have been verified as such???

You happily seem to deem the "absence of norm" to be anti-social, yet condone the British Government in it's Foreign Policy.

You happily seem to deem the "absence of norm" to relate to Child Abuse, yet would condone it as a "secular movement" because it was, in the words of a member, "a small minority, who do not represent Christ".

It is easy, is it not, to make excuses for certain individuals to "tarnish" the name of God, but evident also, that the name of God, and Religion in general, is used to further the aims of individuals.

Ignorance in my book, is the inability to see beyond what you are told and fed, and the norm is just a "cntrol method".

Nothing I have read in the debate, has led me to believe that any of you, would challenge any accepted doctrines, lest you fall from favour of the "pack".

I note, with interest, that Mark has questioned the validity of the Jewish nation, their actions, and outcome,........take a lead gentlemen, expand your horizons........and think (if only for five minutes) what the World might truly be like without religious influence.


Could it be possible to have a National Charter of Behaviour that did not include reference to "a being that may or not may have existed", It is possible that somewhere in America, they tell the "true" story of someone called Christ?!.

It's the eternal easy option to say "it's not the religion, it's the people practising it that cause the problems".........but again, the original arguement, if it didn't exist, what would the World be like??


Now come on you "Intellectuals", ye seers of "Ignorance" who would deem common thought mere but commonplace, as opposed to denegrating let's have you re-generating, make your speeches for compliance!!.


An interesting point I should note before you post......."

"Innovation and change has never occured within a norm, for the norm validate and incubate, but have no eyes beyond the obvious" Dingo 2008


.....and in you eyes I see??

 

[Glaucus]

Dingo you are ignorant and sprouting rubbish like that just shows it even more a long post with nothing but mumbo jumbo. It has nothing to do with the norm. It's the fact you want to control what people think and believe. That is wrong on so many levels. With out religion the same things would happen. It would just be blamed on terrorism, Weapons of mass destruction, Football or many other current examples that existed today.

 

[Munky1080]

And you think that show wasn't biased a bit to make them look like loons? Take it with a pinch of salt mate and get over it....like many things in life, it's not exactly how the media make it out to be.

 

[Kaiju]

As with absolutly everything else in the world there are good people who are religous and bad people who are religeous

There are people who find believing in a higher power helps them get through their lives and that religion provides them with a moral guide that they love. I say good for them, if they are happy that they have this in their lives then all the best for them.

There are people who take things too far and want to hurt/kill people who think differently to them. These poeple aren't exlusive to religion. Football hooligans for example, they want to hurt people who cheer for a different 11 people who kick a bag of wind around than they do. Shall we ban football?

I always post a similar thing when threads like these appear, and feel like a broken record but surely it isn't an inordinatley difficult concept to grasp. There are good and bad people from every background/walk of life.

Pretty much how I feel about the subject.

Some people are simply better and happier if they are religious. There will always be a minority who get the wrong idea.

 

[semi-pro waster]

How absolutely delicious gentlemen, as I have watched the debate unfold, and as usual, denegrate, into the "fixed attitudes" of the masses!.

Whilst 99% of the posts have, as as expected, conformed to the "norm", I have been delighted to see Mr Squirell take a stand, and he has, of course, been villified, as ignorant, as have I. Huzzar for you, who hold the world in your hand, for you are truly enlightened!!

It is with regret that I "pop your bubble", and have been branded "ignorant" by many, that I ask the question..........so how many of you so called "intellectuals". have been verified as such???

You've been popping bubbles with your brief rants? Ah, that puts it in a whole different light. I'm not sure anyone in here has called themselves an intellectual but nice attempt at argumentum ad hominem.

You happily seem to deem the "absence of norm" to be anti-social, yet condone the British Government in it's Foreign Policy.

Do you perhaps mean condemn? Lots of people disdain the British Government's foreign policy and will say so.

You happily seem to deem the "absence of norm" to relate to Child Abuse, yet would condone it as a "secular movement" because it was, in the words of a member, "a small minority, who do not represent Christ".

It is easy, is it not, to make excuses for certain individuals to "tarnish" the name of God, but evident also, that the name of God, and Religion in general, is used to further the aims of individuals.

If you are going to throw that sort of accusation around then I'd like you to prove that bad deeds wouldn't exist without religion in the World.

Ignorance in my book, is the inability to see beyond what you are told and fed, and the norm is just a "cntrol method".

Nothing I have read in the debate, has led me to believe that any of you, would challenge any accepted doctrines, lest you fall from favour of the "pack".

Funnily enough nothing I've read from you has led me to change my beliefs either, your fault or mine? I'm not sure.

I note, with interest, that Mark has questioned the validity of the Jewish nation, their actions, and outcome,........take a lead gentlemen, expand your horizons........and think (if only for five minutes) what the World might truly be like without religious influence.

I wouldn't bet on it being much different to this one.

Could it be possible to have a National Charter of Behaviour that did not include reference to "a being that may or not may have existed", It is possible that somewhere in America, they tell the "true" story of someone called Christ?!.

It's the eternal easy option to say "it's not the religion, it's the people practising it that cause the problems".........but again, the original arguement, if it didn't exist, what would the World be like??

Again probably much like this World.

Now come on you "Intellectuals", ye seers of "Ignorance" who would deem common thought mere but commonplace, as opposed to denegrating let's have you re-generating, make your speeches for compliance!!.


An interesting point I should note before you post......."

"Innovation and change has never occured within a norm, for the norm validate and incubate, but have no eyes beyond the obvious" Dingo 2008


.....and in you eyes I see??

And we finish with cod philosophy.

 

[Whiskas]

So do I get a vote on whether I want to be controlled by the Orwellian Thought Police or the Xianist Thought Police?

Whilt some might found it slightly worrying that we still believe in a bunch of 2000 year old Middle-Eastern folk stories you can't and should not try and enforce your views onto other people. If the current religions are to go the way of the dodo they should be allowed to run their natural course.

I thikn part of the issue is we are at a cultural crossroads. With new advances in science (and in particular medicine and technology) many people are now questioning the validity of the established religions.


As for the accusations of racism, religion is merely another form of tribalism, a way of identifying your own and differentiating between "us" and "them". This is undeniably part of human nature and something that we, as a species, will never eradicate.

 

[Scrutinize]

"Innovation and change has never occurred within a norm, for the norm validate and incubate, but have no eyes beyond the obvious" Dingo 2008

Do you actually understand what you are tying to say with this? If so please explain.

Sounds like the badly written ending to a piece of first year social psychology degree coursework on observing the states of behaviour.

 

[p4radox]

...mumbo jumbo...


...Nothing I have read in the debate, has led me to believe that any of you, would challenge any accepted doctrines, lest you fall from favour of the "pack"...


...mumbo jumbo...

Do you think people don't have the gift of rational choice? Do you think that "indoctrination" is absolute? I'd like to think I have the ability to think, believe or say whatever I like.

It is of course, an interesting thought experiment to wonder what the world would be like had religion never existed, but from a purely scientific standpoint I don't think we'd be human without it. We have a natural tendency to belive things which cannot be proven.

But my personal point of view is that I don't belive in "non-provable things" because its in my nature, but because I know things, I've seen things and I've experienced things which purely logical methods cannot deal with.

Nothing I've read in your post adds anything to the argument that the world would be a better place without religion, or even that it'd be possible to create such a world.

 

[Chimerical]

I went to a Catholic School (primary & secondary) and found Religion to be oppressive, hypocritical and, for me, interfering.

I don't believe there should be religious schools as such, as telling children that they're going to hell for swearing (see; Ten Commandments) didn't do me a lot of good when I was younger.

Forcing it on children is wrong (in Britain). It's made worse that the parents have sent their children to a religious faith school in the first place, the child has no choice. I believe a Religious Studies class in every school is fine, so long as it preaches nothing and simply educates about the historical impact and relevance of All religions in the world.

I don't really have a problem with people believing in God, just hate it being forced on me.

Just my opinion.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I went to a Catholic School (primary & secondary) and found Religion to be oppressive, hypocritical and, for me, interfering.

Yeah, some bits of religion are like that.

I don't believe there should be religious schools as such, as telling children that they're going to hell for swearing (see; Ten Commandments) didn't do me a lot of good when I was younger.

Firstly, there's nothing about swearing in the Ten Commandments. Secondly, religious schools are fine, assuming they meet the necessary curricular standards, but I'm not convinced that they should have state funding.

Forcing it on children is wrong (in Britain). It's made worse that the parents have sent their children to a religious faith school in the first place, the child has no choice. I believe a Religious Studies class in every school is fine, so long as it preaches nothing and simply educates about the historical impact and relevance of All religions in the world.

Yeah, I'd agree with parts of that, though I still think a parent should be free to send a child to a faith school, as otherwise you are unfairly restricting a parent's right to teach what they believe.

I don't really have a problem with people believing in God, just hate it being forced on me.

Fair enough.

Just my opinion.

I wish everyone would stop caveating their opinions! Of course it's your opinion, and you're allowed to have it.

 

[Combat squirrel]

Some people have not half sprouted rubbish in this thread, as ever nothing can ever be agreed upon, but time for some mind opening imagery that must be agreed upon, this picture just says it all, because it cannot be entered into a debate, its real, its earth, no nit picking is required:

And its ever so beautifully summarised by Carl Sagen:

That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every 'superstar,' every 'supreme leader,' every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

FACT is we just a spec of dust in the grand scheme of things, and fact is everything would still be there if we were not. FACT is god is a human 'invention'. Take away humans, does god still remain ? Every other known creature doesn't have any concept of god, and all live wonderfully in there environment, just imagine earth with no humans, covered in life that co exists perfectly, no god would exist there, because our crazy minds couldnt have dreamt him up.

 

[wannabedamned]

I grew up going to church from a young age, My mum is very religous, and so I was brought up in the same light. Baptised, Confirmed, I even served in church.

I went to a catholic school, Had RE taught through out.

Now I don't remember exactly how it happened, But I'm now agnostic. I don't go to church, and I am totally un-religous.

The Bible is a great story, But that's all it is. Part 'chinese whisper' style writings and part obvious fiction.

 

[Vonhelmet]

*drivel*

I tried to go point by point through your post, but it's impenetrable. For starters, what the hell is this "absence of norm" you keep going on about?