767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 151:
Line 151: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is religion morally wrong? (view source)
Revision as of 17:30, April 23, 2007
, 17:30, April 23, 2007→Selective application of logic
:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.
::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==Age at which sex education should be taught==
Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?
This is a complicated issue because there are several related facts. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.
I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and expirimentation.
What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believe that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.
We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?
Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Alistair Crowley]] are famous, but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==No==
==No==
No, but it's logically and philosophically flawed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
No, but it's logically and philosophically flawed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)