Religulous

[ErikS]

21 minutes ago, boxpin said:

this just tells me you didnt read it. 

Hold on now.  Kevin may be quite a bit younger than us, but he has a right to voice whatever opinion he has.  We get it is a social teaching tool, with stories that relate to how people should treat each other - why does the Bible need to be the reference book?  

Again, I hold to my statement that there is more important information out there now to further humanity, not a static religious text.

[Fudge_Brownie]

1 hour ago, boxpin said:

this just tells me you didnt read it. 

I did not read it fully, but took a quick look. Any thing I should pay close attention to? Because this looks like indoctrination to me. Even if we overlook the controversy in teaching children this young about religion without examining other ones (or none at all), it teaches the kid to listen to god.

"To strengthen each child’s desire to obey Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and to obey his or her parents. (..) Politely ask the children to do several actions, such as stand up, turn around, reach up high, touch their toes, and sit down. Thank them for doing as you asked. Explain that they were being obedient. They obeyed your instructions. (..) Explain that our parents love us and want us to do things that will keep us safe and happy. (..) Explain that when we obey our parents, we can feel happy. Our parents are also happy when we obey. (..) Explain that one of Heavenly Father’s commandments is that we pray only to him. We do not pray to other people or to images, which are like statues. Explain that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego knew Heavenly Father’s commandments and wanted to obey them. Heavenly Father protected these men from the fire because they obeyed him. The fire did not burn them. "

This entire thing is centered around teaching children to obey religion, and I'm not seeing anything that even acknowledges the possibility of any other way. It links this concept to the family structure and implies that it is what holds the family together, and makes everyone happy. In other words, the child is a bad person for not participating in this. I realize LDS is not the only one who does this, but this is indoctrination.

[boxpin]

You all realize that this is a pointless debate, that is why there are so many religions. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYAhlz7rnPU

[Kevin.]

1 hour ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

......

 

you're on to something here....

 

 

as a reminder: if there is nothing I can say, no evidence that I can show you that your religion/beliefs are incorrect then there is no point in conversing about the subject. So, here's the question to those arguing for religion: is there anything that can or could be said to change your mind about your religion?

[Burn-E]

Kevin, the problem is you think it's about you proving someone is wrong.  You can't prove a negative.  You have to prove that you are right.

I know what I know and I believe what I believe not because of some logical rhetoric someone spelled out in a book.  I know it because I have tested it, lived it and applied the principles in my life.  I've received answers to prayer, and found the fruits of the work to not only be delicious but soul satisfying. It is logical because of what I've experienced.  I found God in moments of quiet contemplation, moments of absolute despondency, and moments of extremely focused effort. But primarily I found Him through serving others and being an implement of good in the lives of those in need. I have been the answer to others' prayers and come in their time of need when a impression pointed me in their direction to offer something I should not have known they needed.

God speaks if we just learn to listen.

Walk a mile in my shoes and perhaps you will see differently.

I spent two years dedicated to talking daily with people seeking answers as well as those hellbent on proving I was wrong.  I understand doubt and appreciate fully the leap of faith it requires to cross the chasm between the denial of any supreme being and the hope that perhaps something bigger than you is not only out there but cares about you and knows you personally better than you know yourself.

I've responded to phone calls at 2 AM from more than one person who felt the world has given up on them, that God has forsaken them and their life is falling apart at the seams.    What do you offer someone seeking answers at a moment like that? Love and compassion and support. You want to find God? Learn to see as He sees and listen as He listens.

I've been hard on you because you're spouting off spur of the moment thoughts you haven't really considered but instead regurgitated from something you once read. Stop and consider what do you really believe and why?

[ErikS]

1 hour ago, Burn-E said:

You can't prove a negative.  You have to prove that you are right.

I know what I know and I believe what I believe not because of some logical rhetoric someone spelled out in a book. 

How can something be true and not true simultaneously?

That's what we are asking the religious.  There is evidence for facts, and there is fiction - if God is not fiction show me evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence for the opposite argument. Its the absolutist view that a religious view is right, and everyone is wrong that irks the fuck out of the rest of us.  If a religion is so right then why is everyone else so wrong?

[theForgottenone]

2 minutes ago, ErikS said:

How can something be true and not true simultaneously?

That's what we are asking the religious.  There is evidence for facts, and there is fiction - if God is not fiction show me evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence for the opposite argument.

We are asked to believe in faith. Isn't that all religions is boiled down to?

 

Some willing to do thing for the promise of 72 virgins waiting for them.

Others promise that there is afterlife with heaven is the ultimate  final destination.

[Matty Moo]

1 hour ago, Burn-E said:

Kevin, the problem is you think it's about you proving someone is wrong.  You can't prove a negative.  You have to prove that you are right.

 

It goes back to not long ago where everybody knew it was disrespectful to question others beliefs and almost everybody practiced that rule.   It was common sense and respect for others.  As early as middle school we were told that you don't argue religion or politics as the outcome will never be good.  You and I remember that. 

Social media has changed the rule of common sense in the religion area, it's a daily thing to see the card-carrying types of the far left attacking Christianity, mainly the very evil white Christian male.

I was raised Catholic and I have zero issue with it.   I also have no issue with what others believe in regardless of what deity or following it may be or even if they are atheist.   That is called respect for others and their beliefs.   Beliefs are an individual preference as we are all individuals with our own thoughts on different things.  

To actually question somebody on their religious beliefs is beyond comprehension to me.  It's just really fucking disrespectful. 

Food for thought for those that are into attacking religion.   

  

[Fudge_Brownie]

3 minutes ago, Matty Moo said:

To actually question somebody on their religious beliefs is beyond comprehension to me.  It's just really fucking disrespectful. 

Food for thought for those that are into attacking religion.   

I think there's a difference between discussing/debating it and attacking. Also, I have a really strong issue with the idea that people should mind their own business, when someone like Kim Davis is refusing to mind her own, and you don't hear much from the rest of her crowd telling her to shut up or get out of the way. The real game changer isn't social media, it's that more people are losing their religion. And maybe social media plays a role in exposing the indoctrinated to a different way of life. Discovering that not having god doesn't mean you end up in the gutter.

For the record, my development pre-dates social media. And I always had these discussions. I don't find it unreasonable for someone to question my own belief, though I do find it unreasonable for someone to attack it.

[Kevin.]

Alain I've been working on a post for you, I think I'll finally share it tonight on here

[Matty Moo]

2 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

I think there's a difference between discussing/debating it and attacking. Also, I have a really strong issue with the idea that people should mind their own business, when someone like Kim Davis is refusing to mind her own, and you don't hear much from the rest of her crowd telling her to shut up or get out of the way. The real game changer isn't social media, it's that more people are losing their religion. And maybe social media plays a role in exposing the indoctrinated to a different way of life. Discovering that not having god doesn't mean you end up in the gutter.

For the record, my development pre-dates social media. And I always had these discussions. I don't find it unreasonable for someone to question my own belief, though I do find it unreasonable for someone to attack it.

It wasn't directed at you at all.     Discussing is one thing, questioning (challenging)  somebody about their faith or foundation of it is another.  Kevin (bless his heart) tends to post things that he has seen elsewhere, knows it is provocative and goes with it anyway. 

He posted another bullshit meme on Facebook yesterday  that essentially said all Christians support slavery, racism, bigotry and whatever else.   In reality it's  a very tiny percentage, but the main goal of it was there for two reasons.   

1.  Provocation

2.  Advance the anti-christian agenda of the far left.  He regurgitated it which was the goal of the creator of it. 

I know plenty of very liberal people that don't participate in any of that nonsense.   Mainly the older ones with sense while the younger ones (not all)  get all their new info from social media and biased sites INSTEAD of having discussions. 

Intelligent discussion has taken a back seat to some really fucking stupid memes, pictorials and quotes/articles from people/celebrities that are idiots to begin with.. 

Social media is for pictures of my dogs and cats. 

 

 

 

[Burn-E]

9 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

I did not read it fully, but took a quick look. Any thing I should pay close attention to? Because this looks like indoctrination to me. Even if we overlook the controversy in teaching children this young about religion without examining other ones (or none at all), it teaches the kid to listen to god.

"To strengthen each child’s desire to obey Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and to obey his or her parents. (..) 

This entire thing is centered around teaching children to obey religion, and I'm not seeing anything that even acknowledges the possibility of any other way. It links this concept to the family structure and implies that it is what holds the family together, and makes everyone happy. In other words, the child is a bad person for not participating in this. I realize LDS is not the only one who does this, but this is indoctrination.

Indoctrination is a funny word.  Is it indoctrination when you teach a child the laws of physics?  Is it indoctrination when you teach a teenager the rules of the road and how to drive a car?  Is it indoctrination when you teach a child that actions have consequences and how to evaluate which consequences are better than others? 

See, the view that teaching principles and truths is wrong and somehow harms a child is founded on the belief that it removes their capacity to think for themselves.  We educate children to help them understand the principles that will allow them greatest possible success and happiness in life.  I once debated this with a father who stopped by a friend's apartment when I was visiting one day.  His two sons were living together, one was in his late teens the other his early twenties.  Both were living on their own on welfare and had no direction in life.  One was a petty thief and the other a small time drug dealer who had just finished describing his plans to travel to Amsterdam to make his next big purchase. (This was in France so the idea wasn't as complicated as you might assume).  The father challenged me on why should a man teach his children right from wrong, why should he "indoctrinate" them on what the church teaches about Jesus Christ and God?  He believed he had done his sons a favor by not filling their heads full of garbage about God.  My response was, that the reality is if you're not teaching your children someone else is always happy to do so.  And quite often it is down paths that are destructive to self and to society. I pointed to my friend and asked, "What have you taught them as a result?  Is this the outcome your wanted?"

Now, is it a fair question?  Is it possible for a child to learn all of what I describe and still choose a destructive path?  Absolutely.  But are they more or less likely to do so? Which approach leads to greater potential happiness and fulfillment in life?

Why does God have to be involved?  Why can't you just teach moral principles without introducing the supernatural into the conversation? Because ultimately there is a moral foundation to life. More importantly there is a purpose to life.  There are fundamental truths that can be discerned, evaluated, experimented upon and absorbed into one's being. Here is a list of basic principles that I have taught my children: https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith To do so requires faith and trust.  Not in man but in God.  Not just in self but in the greater sense of what we are and who we can become.  Too many spend their lives seeking fulfillment in empty pursuits that ultimately do not fill the void within. How do you steer a child to a path that helps them find those answers?  By teaching them to recognize God and to understand their own moral responsibility to find the answers He can provide. Freedom comes by learning how to ask questions and walk with faith to find those answers.

It is easy to become cynical and declare that the belief in God has caused so much of the horrors in life.  That believers have wielded it like a club to injure others and control people. But my response is, was the effort of God or was it of man?  How can you tell the difference?  

Ah, there is the real question. What is the difference between delusion, manipulation and allowing faith to lead you? That is where a teacher is needed and the right approach to finding those answers is required. But ultimately it is possible to see and recognize the difference, to discern truth. It sounds crazy and illogical but I'll stand by that statement. 

Is Kim Davis right?  I would say the principle she is trying to uphold is true but her actions are false.  She has set herself as a martyr in not fulfilling a responsibility to which she was elected by the people she serves.  Were I in her position I would have resisted but ultimately resigned because I believe she was caught between two equally important principles.  Ultimately you have to stay true to what you know God has taught but you also have to support your democratically elected government.  She confused her role and abdicated her responsibility. But I can say that because I agree with her that marriage is defined by God and not man.  Government can sanction a union between two men or women but that does not mean it is morally right or that it constitutes marriage.  There is a difference between a union and relationship of temporal existence and one that will persist into the life that follows this one. I don't say this to debate this particular issue but simply to offer an example of what it means to live in the world, to influence it but ultimately to recognize that a believer has a responsibility to avoid becoming "of the world" at the same time. In fact, I won't reengage on the question of gay marriage in this thread because we've beaten it to a pulp in a separate discussion previously. We simply disagree on what is right on that question.

So Alden, am I teaching my children?  Absolutely.  But I adhere to the belief that if I teach them correct principles they will be better equipped to make their way through life and find answers for themselves. And that by doing so I establish a relationship of trust that I have a responsibility to uphold as much as they do. That I should be honest with them in what I know, what I believe and how I arrived at that understanding.  And that I trust them in their capacity to find answers of their own.

[Yellow95]

14 hours ago, ErikS said:

How can something be true and not true simultaneously?

That's what we are asking the religious.  There is evidence for facts, and there is fiction - if God is not fiction show me evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence for the opposite argument. Its the absolutist view that a religious view is right, and everyone is wrong that irks the fuck out of the rest of us.  If a religion is so right then why is everyone else so wrong?

If religion is nothing more than a moral compass for those that fear hell then it has done more for humanity then anything(you?) atheists believe in.

[ErikS]

Is that a question or a statement?  How is my moral compass somehow skewed for not believing in God?

Millions (some estimates are in the hundreds of millions) have died "in the name of God."  I can't say the same number have died "not in the name of God."

When I travel to Saudi Arabia, I have to lie on my visa application or I could actually be punished by death for not saying there is a God.

Makes you feel war and fuzzy doesn't it?

[Kevin.]

Alain, teaching someone facts in school is extremely different than teaching them your opinion about the afterlife. Of course you can teach someone morality without God/religion being involved, you're looking at this the wrong way. You consistently refer to this "slippery slope" idealism yet you are literally using that mentality to teach your children. I do understand that everyone has their own right to raise their child how they choose, but when you aren't giving your children a choice about their beliefs and are imposing your own onto them I see an issue. That is one of the core issues I have with religion, that the children of religious parents aren't really being given a choice about what they believe. And please, don't tell me that your children DID make a choice, because you heavily influenced that choice through your actions. That's what I could call manipulation and indoctrination.

 

I slightly elaborated on my religious background, but now I will go into it fully to disclose how and why I feel the way I do. I was born into a Christian family and baptized in a Christian church. My parents raised me to be a man of God and to fear the word of the LORD, and I complied because I was a good boy that wanted to make his parents happy. Somewhere around the age of 7 or 8 I accepted Christ into my heart much to the thrill of my parents and my church community. From that point forward, I would constantly spent my free time volunteering and assisting the church through various outreaches and programs. After I discovered my love for music and developed my talents, I became heavily involved in my church's music programs and would volunteer in the kindergarten and younger kids groups. I really loved what I was doing and constantly worked to grow in my own faith and to inspire others. Over the years I continued to grow in both my faith and my involvement in my church. After my family moved to Spokane was when I really became heavily involved in my church volunteering. I would constantly volunteer in both of the youth groups (middle and high school) as well as the adult services in both music and A/V.

At around this point I started to step back from my beliefs to see why I believed what I did and how they were positively effecting me. I reached out for counseling to my youth pastor and he essentially told me that it was normal to question some beliefs but in the end God is in control and that I will always find my way back to him. This was about the time I joined the military and went to basic training, and I will tell you that during basic I had a very polarizing view of religion. People used religion to get away from their feelings, to feel as though they belonged in a group, and to get out of work. This was very different for me, as I found that church was almost a sort of refill for my week. So I began to talk to my fellow airmen about their experiences as Christians (or whatever religion they believed) and I found similar idealism: born and raised in church, made early commitment to said church when they were young, volunteered and helped and then began to question. We all talked about it and came to the same conclusion: we only belonged to the religion we are in because we were born into that religion. So I did something unthinkable, I walked away from religion. I stopped going to services and made friends in other places and I felt free. It was a weird feeling, that I was able to make my own choices instead of feeling like I only had to have church friends (this was how I was raised).

While I was in the military I met my wife who was raised in a Roman Catholic home who experienced the same epiphany as myself: once she was able to step back and look at the religion she was raised in she no longer wanted to participate. We have both worked to have a healthy relationship based on love we have for each other. We have found happiness even though we have no religion and frankly we have no intentions of going back.

 

Onto the discussion of religion liberties and religious freedom: you as an american citizen have a guaranteed right to practice your own religion as you see fit. If this whole debacle was truly about practicing your religion, then other religions should be able to justify the religion freedom argument. What if a Muslim family refused to serve you because of their own personal beliefs?