Jump to: navigation, search

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

8,275 bytes added, 01:20, 3 January 2015
Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/DWBarnes|DWBarnes]] ([[User talk:DWBarnes|talk]]) to last revision by [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]
:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::How many fundamentalist religious groups do you know? I came to Jesus via a summercamp and went to a non-denomination fundamentalist Baptist Church for years. I've had a lot of experiences since then with megachurches and elsewhere, and it to me remains central to free thought. The pastor there actually allowed us to ask questions during the sermons and would teach different competing theories, challenging us to consider them for ourselves. He was confident in the Bible and believed it could stand up to scrutiny. While we didn't sing modern Christian music, he said this was a preference and that was up to other churches - he just wasn't into it. To this day it remains one of my fondest memories, and encouraged my thought process far more than any church or college I've been in (I have over 60 credit hours completed at an accredited college). --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 18:56, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007
You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?
You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.
::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".
:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?
:::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)
My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007
::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.
::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
==Age at which sex education should be taught==
:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, well i was arguing under the assumption that you are a theist, when you are in fact a deist. I do not believe in either type of god, or any kind of god whatsoever, the magical bogeyman, the sentient universe or whatever others someone comes up with. When you say 'we' though i am a little confused, as the majority of religious people seem to be theists. Please correct me if this is a wrong impression however. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 28 April 2007
==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007
Being an atheist who wasn't raised religiously, I have a counter point to any religious posters. And this has nothing to do with the existence of God or if the universe has purpose; this is simply my outlook as a 22 year old man who has little to no experience religiously and no....I am not college educated...yet. Imagine you are me. You were raised with no religion in your life, without any major religious influences from friends to bring you to their church, no real reason to pray your entire life. Now, you join the service and meet a VARIED amount of people (I can't stretch that enough), many of which are very religious. Suddenly, you are having conversations about an invisible, omnipotent being that knows and sees all and you stare at them like they are totally insane. Since to you, it is like they are talking about werewolves or manticores, but they believe in it so much that they base their entire life on it. Now, I'm sure that I must seem insane to them. I mean, they're shocked that I do not believe in God! It must blow their mind that I live my life without faith in a higher power and most likely think that I have no moral compass whatsoever. As insane as atheism seems to a religious individual, religion seems equally insane to those who are atheist. This makes this argument very difficult to have. But I have to say, I've enjoyed this article thoroughly. And being a WoW player, I simply have to say that I am posting in an epic thread.
[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April 2008
==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007
:Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was a Christian. Despite being raised as a Catholic and making out that he was invoking God in his speeches, he realised that the churches would never go along with his policies and planned on eliminating them[].
:I can understand your scepticism towards the Bible, given your view on how it was written. But I reject your views on how it was written. Sure, it was written by quite a few different authors (but not "hundreds"), but under the guidance of God, so it had a single ultimate author. The vast majority was written by eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the rest by people who knew the eyewitnesses. The Jews respected the Scriptures as God's Word and would not dare alter it, so it was generally not "improved" by other authors (the exceptions being things like authors close to the original authors anyway, as in Joshua writing the final part of Moses' Deuteronomy). And there are no contradictions; at the very least none that can be conclusively shown to be contradictions. Any "weirdness" is likely to be from you not understanding the customs of the time, etc.
:Now I'm sure you will reject most of what I've just said, but the point is that your ''conclusion'' about it's trustworthiness is based on your ''belief'' about how it came to be, yet you present that belief as though it was accepted or self-evident truth. It is neither self-evident nor is it accepted by a lot of people.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
There is not hard evidence on whether Hitler was in fact religious. The Vatican was a great ally to him in many cases and Goebbals and Himmler both wrote that he was a practising catholic. He refered to himself as the hand of God in many speeches. On the other hand he said things such as "Christianity is the greatest evil the world has seen since the Black Plague". Historians think that he was a Christain until around 1940 where he converted to agnostiscism or atheism. The main point is that most of his plans and programs had begun well before this such as the holocaust and the complete indoctrination of German children with his propoganda (almost like churches today). As an aside he could still be christian while disliking the church.
There is a point on which we cannot be reconciled. You believe that god guided the writing of the bible, i don't believe he exists and therefore that the writers were often flying by the seat of their pants as they wrote. However to deny that there were 'improvements' is a little bit ignorant. As an example, the story of the ressurection was not written until over 200 years after Jesus's death.
There are many contradictions in the bible, not the least of which come in the story of the birth of Jesus. John writes in his gospel that several of his followers were surprised that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, while of course, Mark and Luke write that he was born there. However while Mark has Mary and Joseph always having lived there, Luke gets them there by refering to a census of Israel by the Romans that results in Joseph having to return to his home town. Unfortunately for Luke, the records show that the census occured in 6 AD, after King Herod's death. As well as this, there are gospels that the church decided to leave out of the final version of the bible, including the gospels of Judas, Bartholomew, Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen. What was wrong with these gospels that was right with the four that were chosen? May it have been to the fact that some of them do not portray such a saintly image of Jesus as the others? The gospel of Thomas has stories of a young Jesus abusing his powers by turning his friends into goats or mud into sparrows.
My conclusion about its trustworthiness is based upon the facts that i have read that show that the bible is not such an accurate account after all. And if the writers were guided by god, then how could they have gotten some historical facts so wrong? The creation of the world, Noahs arc, the birth of Jesus, the ressurection and so on. This I think exposes exactly how innacurate the bible is as any sort of record or source of morals.
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007
:You say that the main point is that many of Hitler's program were started before he stopped being a Christian around 1940, but I'm not sure of the relevance of that as a "main point" when "around 1940" is not known for certain anyway. Secondly, the ''main'' point is not whether or not he was or thought himself a Christian, but whether or not he was acting according to Christian principles. He clearly was not.
:It's rubbish to claim that the record of the resurrection was not written until over 200 years after his death.
:Most bibliosceptic claims of contradictions in the Bible are nothing of the sort, and the one about Jesus' birthplace is a good example. John does ''not'' say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. What he says is that some ''people'' (note: not necessarily "followers") were puzzled by the fact that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, whereas Jesus came from the area of Galilee. Both are correct. Jesus was ''born in'' Bethlehem, but ''grew up'' in Galilee. No contradiction; your accusation was not supported by the evidence you provided.
:The issue of the census is not a ''contradiction'', even if Luke got is wrong. But there being a census in 6 AD doesn't preclude there being another census earlier, and in any case, Luke is recognised as being a very accurate historian.
:The "gospels" that you claim that the church "left out" were never "in" to begin with. They were never considered to be part of the Scriptures by the early church.
:Based on the above, your conclusions about the trustworthiness is based on "facts" that are not facts at all. I suggest that you question the trustworthiness of your sources that promulgate such nonsense as "contradictions" such as this.
:The historical facts are ''not'' wrong. Some people have a view that things happened differently, but have no documented evidence to support it, and your argument amounts to saying, "my view is right, so your view is wrong". That's not an argument.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
==Questions and Answers==
As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::We, as in humanity, do not know why the laws of physics happen to be the way they are. Maybe there was no choice, and for the universe to have come into existence these laws must have been the way they are. Or maybe there are other explanations. We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer. I simply accept that I do not know everything and then I attempt to find out why such things are the way they are. I do not think that we were lucky to have the laws of physics, I am confident that there is a solid scientific reason that does not allow any greater sentience to have a hand in things and that this reason will become evident in the not to distant future.
::I do not think there is more wisdom in youth than in age. That is the reason I said 'slightly misguided'. Not totally misguided and not completely idiotic. Just that there are old people who are not wise just as there are young people who are. I do not claim to be one of those young people, I am not wise in any sense, although I do hope to learn from my experiences and others and thus become wise. However many people do not use experience in this way and so do not become wise, just as some people pick up on things quickly and are. I do not doubt the foundations of the philosophies that provide me with such. I doubt the philsophies of Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and any that have agreed with these two charlatans parading themselves as philosophers.[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:52, 28 April 2007
::''Bolly, '''please''' learn the conventions of colons to seperate text. (I'm tired of adding your colons.) I put instructions on your discussion page some days ago.''
==The Imaginary Catalyst==
There's a part of the concept you're having a very difficult time wrapping your head around. You wrote:
::''We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer.''
You don't know it but your making an argument of semantics not a argument of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call it Luck, God, or some as yet uknown catalyst, in the end all rational humans agree that SOMETHING is the answer. Once we agree that there answer then we can begin to examine by deduction the properties of that something. People tend to get hung up on words because it connects them to some childhood they are rebelling against or a childhood that they are attempting to validate.
Whether we call it God, Luck, Fate, No-alternative, the concept descriptor doesn't change the concept. In other to explain to others, I prefer to find use words which make sense to them, rather than fighting them about things that don't matter. Here's another way to look at it:
Do you remember the concept of ''i'', the imaginary number from mathematics? Conservapedia doesn't have an article about ''i'' yet, but you can read one from Wikipedia [ | here]. The idea behind ''i'' is that some concepts are not fully understood but still can be examined in an objective manner. According to some Wikipedia editor,
:"''Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory.''"
Thus, I can understand why you are resistant to this concept. But if mathemeticians can do it, so can you.
Forget about "God", the word touches a fear deep in your psyche. The previous debater wanted to call it ''Luck''. How about for your benefit we call it ''g'', an as-yet unknown causation of the laws of physics and the origins of the universe as God. I agree we might one day learn all the properties of ''g'' but right now we don't know the properties of ''g''.
The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist. The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
What the heck is the question? What started the universe? I'm sure that is a physics question. And I'm sure they are working on an answer. Just because you lack the words to describe it in terms less vague then "the force" doesn't mean there aren't people who will discovery a non-imaginary solution. Welcome to reality where there are no imaginary answers. -Sam
: Thank you for your expression of ''faith'' that a naturalistic answer will be found. I'm sure that it's ''not'' a physics question, as cosmologists propose that the laws of physics didn't apply until ''after'' the Big Bang commenced. Secondly, it's a unique past event, so not directly observable, testable, nor repeatable; it's a question of ''history'', not physics. My history book (written by the infallible God), says that the universe was started by Him, and it wasn't in the form of the Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 26 November 2007 (EST)
==Atheism vs. Deism==
This debate has wandered far from the invalid question. I have reposted key parts of this debate under [[Atheism vs. Deism | Atheism_vs_Deism]] where I will continue discourse. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:P.s. This is the most ridiculus concept of information ever. {{unsigned|Christianlove}}
::Pardon? What are you referring to, and why should we take any notice when you don't provide any explanation nor justification? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
==Atheist Wars==
If religion were wrong, why have so many people been killed by atheistic governments? China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Hundreds of millions have died under atheistic governments even though they are much rarer than religious governments. Therefore, religion itself is not wrong, it is just one of many things that evil people use to harm others, like government, politics, science, public wikis, etc. The evil is in people regardless of whether they are religious or not, and they will harm others over any disagreement they feel strongly about. As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?" One has only to look at China and other atheistic countries to see that some of the worst human rights abuses occur in the world's select few atheistic countries. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 04:08, 2 September 2013 (EDT)