Atheism

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

it amazes me when people say they are sending their children to religious instruction for structure and moral direction.[/QUOTE]

Why would this amaze you? Not a thing wrong of course with a secular framework, but the general implication that a secular path is the superior one seems unfounded. Are they not alternatives to each other? Two paths to the same place? That was the heart of my response to Heavenite that got poofed. People seem to feel entitled to have secularism as guide and support accepted as better and more reasoned without actually making anything like an actual case for that. How is that different from the rigidity and arrogance that can flow from organized religion? Your bad experience with faith certainly entitles you and others who have largely experienced it as a tool of fear and guilt and control to reject all of it as destructive and to not need religion or the idea of god in your lives, but that's not what you and others say. You said "We don't need religion or 'god' to guide us.". Who is we?** How do you know what other people want or need, or how their own experience of faith entirely separate from yours gives distinct meaning to their lives and choices? You can't take the best of secularism and hold it up to the worst of organized religion and expect to come up with anything that means much.

** Edit: realize now you probably meant you and your daughter - sorry! - read my post then as a general point I still think is reflective of the way athiests usually regard those who embrace some element of faith, evidenced many times on QZ where faith and religion are associated with weakness, stupidity, a lack of reason etc.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

So maybe it's not religion that I loathe but the manner in which many practice it. Or maybe it's both.[/QUOTE]
Probably just the latter. Beliefs are neutral and harmless. It's people who make them useful or not.

>>>Why would this amaze you?<<< The sentence after the one you quoted provides the answer to this question but I’ll rephrase - It amazes me because they think that is ‘the’ way to instill structure and morals in their children while at the same time complimenting my child for those very qualities when, in these cases, they know we do not adhere to any form of religion. >>>Not a thing wrong of course with a secular framework, but the general implication that a secular path is the superior one seems unfounded.<<< The general implication was not that secular is superior but rather that non-secular is not. >>> How is that different from the rigidity and arrogance that can flow from organized religion? <<< Because it’s not organized. It’s individualized. The rigidity and arrogance of organized religion is evident when you’re blocked from joining, say, a homeschool group solely because your religious beliefs are not the same as the organizers’, even though your only interest is finding a quality academic education for your child or the ability to socialize with people who are like-minded where the public school system is concerned. “Secular” in the comments I made referred to a group whose common interest was homeschooling by whatever method works for a given child, whether it be religiously focused or otherwise, rather than having a religious focus be the only focus there is. In our secular group, we learned about other religions. In the non-secular groups that I mentioned, that concept would not be considered. >>>Your bad experience with faith certainly entitles you and others who have largely experienced it as a tool of fear and guilt and control to reject all of it as destructive and to not need religion or the idea of god in your lives, but that's not what you and others say. You said "We don't need religion or 'god' to guide us.". Who is we?<<< As you said in the edit, that “we” refers to myself and my daughter – who is doing quite well without the distraction of religion. But the ‘we’ can also refer to everyone who has stood back to look at the direction their lives took while they tried to follow a faith they no longer see, or never saw, as valid. The ‘we’ can apply to everyone who believes as I do, which is that whatever good or bad we do in this lifetime is done without fear or anticipation of a punishment or reward in some other life. We do what’s right simply because it’s right. And we do things wrong simply because we’re human. >>> How do you know what other people want or need, or how their own experience of faith entirely separate from yours gives distinct meaning to their lives and choices? <<< I not only talk to people, but I have also been on both sides of the religious wall. There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch. And there are many, like my parents and others, who see it as a lifeline. The two sides may never understand one another, but I’m not sure understanding is as necessary as acceptance – which is often a sticking point. I don’t care what anyone believes or doesn’t believe as long as their belief is not forced upon me. For example, I wouldn't try to convince my mother not to pray for forgiveness for some wrong she believes she committed, but neither will I drop to my own knees in prayer - for anything - no matter how it is insisted I should. Of course there are broader examples than this but most of my points here relate to my personal experiences. >>>You can't take the best of secularism and hold it up to the worst of organized religion and expect to come up with anything that means much. <<< Actually, I can and I often do. It is my belief system, after all. And as I see it ‘the worst of organized religion’ and ‘organized religion’ are the same. Clearly that is not how you feel, and you are entitled. But I will not alter my own perceptions – created through my own experiences as well as those of others – simply because it doesn’t conform to beliefs some would like us all to hold.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

People seem to feel entitled to have secularism as guide and support accepted as better and more reasoned without actually making anything like an actual case for that. How is that different from the rigidity and arrogance that can flow from organized religion?
[/QUOTE]
One of these paths tends to say "my way is the only way"

Guess which one..

[QUOTE]You can't take the best of secularism and hold it up to the worst of organized religion and expect to come up with anything that means much.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps not, but the best of secularism held up to the best of religion will come up with plenty.

Such as - virtually all human progress in the past 500 years.

It is from rejecting things accepted as true previously purported by religion that we have entered our race's greatest phase of innovation and potential.

>>>The sentence after the one you quoted provides the answer to this question but I’ll rephrase - It amazes me because they think that is ‘the’ way to instill structure and morals in their children while at the same time complimenting my child for those very qualities when, in these cases, they know we do not adhere to any form of religion.

Seems like a bit of a contortion just to find fault. It is certainly "a" way. For their family, it may well be "the" way. Not a difficult concept to plumb if one truly respects the breadth of choice and experiences of others.



>>>The general implication was not that secular is superior but rather that non-secular is not.

That feels less than forthright. Your language is that of contempt. Religion as a "distraction", a "crutch" etc. God distilled to someone to arbitrarily "curse or thank". Frankly such broad statements demonstrate significant ignorance of experiences outside your own and those of the similarly experienced and like minded.



>>> Because it’s not organized. It’s individualized. The rigidity and arrogance of organized religion is evident when you’re blocked from joining, say, a homeschool group solely because your religious beliefs are not the same as the organizers’, even though your only interest is finding a quality academic education for your child or the ability to socialize with people who are like-minded where the public school system is concerned. “Secular” in the comments I made referred to a group whose common interest was homeschooling by whatever method works for a given child, whether it be religiously focused or otherwise, rather than having a religious focus be the only focus there is. In our secular group, we learned about other religions. In the non-secular groups that I mentioned, that concept would not be considered.

Assumptions and predjudice aren't any prettier when they're individualized. People organize themselves in many ways, all the time. There are organizations for women, for men, for baseball players and stamp collectors. The model of faith based organization for learning exists incredibly widely. In Canada at least, it's even publicly funded in several provinces. A publicly funded, legally legislated right to organize on religion and set a religion requirement, in a laid back liberal country. Faith based learning happens in part because it is perceived as valuable to individuals and to education systems as a whole. It's rarely solely about a religion class, it's about trying to create an integrated environment that reflects and models the values and tenets of faith across learning. It is not only within a home schooling group's rights to organize themselves such that contributors share beliefs and goals, it's common sense. You don't play tennis, you don't like tennis, you have no use for tennis, but you're mad at the tennis club because they won't let you join to hang out and gossip and eat the sandwiches or whatever. In my view the single most important contribution of publicly funded faith based education in Ontario is choice. I've been a student and a parent in both public and Catholic schools spanning 40 years, and while I wouldn't reach for the concept of "better" in either case I'd certanly reach for "distinct". Options breed competition, fight apathy and entitlement and raise the bar for everybody Apparently options and choice develop in the home schooling world too. How wonderful.


>>> In our secular group, we learned about other religions. In the non-secular groups that I mentioned, that concept would not be considered.

Perhaps a leap and an assumption, certainly in some and perhaps even most cases. The Catholic School System in Ontario for example requires one religion class a year in high school. Two senior classes focus on World Religions and were favourites of my son, who as an aside independently chose to transition from a public elementary school to a Catholic high school. We'd could certainly agree that any education that didn't cover these culturally and historically relevant facts and issues would be incomplete, and a disservice.


>>> whatever good or bad we do in this lifetime is done without fear or anticipation of a punishment or reward in some other life. We do what’s right simply because it’s right. And we do things wrong simply because we’re human.

I think the majority of people regardless of faith strive to do what's right simply because it's right, and stumble simply because they're human and because morality can be viewed as complex. Not everybody has experienced religion as tyranny. Those that have certainly make a significant contribution in publicy rejecting it and blazing a path for others for whom it is unrewarding or destructive and don't immediately see a way out.


>>> I not only talk to people, but I have also been on both sides of the religious wall. There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch. And there are many, like my parents and others, who see it as a lifeline. The two sides may never understand one another, but I’m not sure understanding is as necessary as acceptance – which is often a sticking point. I don’t care what anyone believes or doesn’t believe as long as their belief is not forced upon me. For example, I wouldn't try to convince my mother not to pray for forgiveness for some wrong she believes she committed, but neither will I drop to my own knees in prayer - for anything - no matter how it is insisted I should. Of course there are broader examples than this but most of my points here relate to my personal experiences.

The phrases "The two sides may never understand on another" and "I don't care what anyone believes or doesn't believe" would never come out of my keyboard because they would simply never form in my mind. I understand completely the range of attitudes about religion and thoroughly respect the many ways in which they evolve. I care about what people believe and don't believe because people interest me and because belief and non belief alike are often important and even defining to people, and as such worthy of acknowledgement and some effort at respect. Sweeping stamements and gratuitious contempt on this subject at the higher levels are merit badges of narrowness and ignorance to me. Much criticism can be and should be directed at specific elements of religion of course, but if at a certain point in development one can't intellectually acknowledge that regardless of truth, faith and religion is also a positive, powerful, real and mysterious force in the lives of many people, I think you've missed something. My view is that we're all poorly positioned to know the existential truths of something as vast and wondrous as the universe, making curiousity and humility my currency of choice on the matter.

>>> But I will not alter my own perceptions – created through my own experiences as well as those of others – simply because it doesn’t conform to beliefs some would like us all to hold.

Your perceptions are fine. It's your narrow, contempt based arguments that I object to.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

Your language is that of contempt. Religion as a "distraction", a "crutch" etc. God distilled to someone to arbitrarily "curse or thank". Frankly such broad statements demonstrate significant ignorance of experiences outside your own and those of the similarly experienced and like minded.[/QUOTE]
It absolutely is a distraction and a crutch. It is a reason to stop searching for ultimate truth because you believe you have found it in a nice prepackaged entity that costs $10-20 once a week in a collection plate.

[QUOTE]People organize themselves in many ways, all the time. There are organizations for women, for men, for baseball players and stamp collectors.[/QUOTE]
Right - but the difference is, women's organizations aren't there to say "screw men," men's organizations aren't there to say "screw women," baseball organizations aren't there to say "screw basketball," and stamp collector organizations aren't there to say "screw coins."

However - religious organizations exist because most of their members think their interpretation of things they cannot prove to be true are more accurate than everyone else's.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

The same applies to organized religion.

>>>>Not everybody has experienced religion as tyranny.<<<< Perhaps not, but I have, and that has shaped my views. >>>>Your perceptions are fine. It's your narrow, contempt based arguments that I object to.<<<< And I accept that mainly because I know that you and I will never agree on this topic, nor will we fully understand one another. Whether “those words would come out of" your keyboard or not, they are true, and your statement that you “understand completely the range of attitudes about religion and thoroughly respect the many ways in which they evolve” is false, for you do not even remotely understand my attitude toward religion nor, as evidenced by your choice of words here, do you ‘respect’ the ways in which they have evolved. And, just to point out the obvious, when I said “I do not care what anyone believes or does not believe” it was with the implication that whatever others’ beliefs might be, is their business not mine. However, your deliberately distorted interpretation of my point hardly expresses the ‘humility’ you profess to hold.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b] >>>>Not everybody has experienced religion as tyranny.<<<< Perhaps not, but I have, and that has shaped my views. >>>>Your perceptions are fine. It's your narrow, contempt based arguments that I object to.<<<< And I accept that mainly because I know that you and I will never agree on this topic, nor will we fully understand one another. Whether “those words would come out of" your keyboard or not, they are true, and your statement that you “understand completely the range of attitudes about religion and thoroughly respect the many ways in which they evolve” is false, for you do not even remotely understand my attitude toward religion nor, as evidenced by your choice of words here, do you ‘respect’ the ways in which they have evolved. And, just to point out the obvious, when I said “I do not care what anyone believes or does not believe” it was with the implication that whatever others’ beliefs might be, is their business not mine. However, your deliberately distorted interpretation of my point hardly expresses the ‘humility’ you profess to hold. [/QUOTE] I understand you just fine. You're consistent at least in undervaluing the experiences of others. If you felt a lack of respect directed at anything other than what I felt were poor and prejudicial arguments, then I reiterate that I do respect your attitudes in your own life as a perfectly reasoned and wholly appropriate response to deeply scarring and unjust past experiences with religion. Other people have different experiences that hold no more or less value than yours, and have no more or less worth in a discussion like this. To echo language you chose, like me, you hold 'a' truth, not 'the' truth. I knew what you meant with the "I don't care..." and that is what I responded to. It wasn't a distortion, deliberate or otherwise.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

I understand you just fine. [/QUOTE]

Which brings me back to my point that, on this, we will never agree.


[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

It is from rejecting things accepted as true previously purported by religion that we have entered our race's greatest phase of innovation and potential. [/QUOTE]

This, IMO, is perfection.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

I understand you just fine. [/QUOTE]

Which brings me back to my point that, on this, we will never agree.


[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

It is from rejecting things accepted as true previously purported by religion that we have entered our race's greatest phase of innovation and potential. [/QUOTE]

This, IMO, is perfection.[/QUOTE]

I guess we'll just have to take your assertion that I don't understand you on faith then. Ironic.

With regard to the other statement I think the forces of religion and secularism on our world have both been a bit of a mixed bag. What do you both see as examples of Bob's statement?

>>>>What do you both see as examples of Bob's statement?<<<<


When parents realized the sun would rise even if they stopped sacrificing their children… though some parents haven’t gotten the message since, as I see it, children are still sacrificed to religion on a regular basis.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

This technical marvel of a website dumped my reply. I'll reassemble later.
[/QUOTE]

Sometimes you have to put a blank line in the text you're quoting, before the " [ /QUOTE ] " tag.

So when that happens, just click back in your browser, copy the text of your post, edit the post that didn't work out, paste in the text and make that small adjustment and you should be good ! If you edit the same post, you'll end up with two posts - one good one and one poor one.

It's silly that this is up to us to figure out, but at least it works.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

With regard to the other statement I think the forces of religion and secularism on our world have both been a bit of a mixed bag. What do you both see as examples of Bob's statement?

[/QUOTE]

Fair play - there was Stalin who had anti-religious propaganda.

But I still stand by what I say. Religion is what has largely stood in the way of human progress - not secularism.

Oh, shoot! This technical marvel of a website made me sign in twice and ... Oh wait, it is coming back to me now. My thoughts are that the way religion is taught is probably too much for sensitive kids. The idea that God will punish people (or that he was capable of anger in the Bible) if you do not obey him may not concern some types of kids, but for the ones who are already doing their best, it is an unnecessary thing to be learning. The Bible is a scary book (I still haven't read it all). My niece asked me who God was when she was about four years old. I did not refer her to the Bible. I just said to her that he watches over us and helps us. She accepted that answer. I'm not saying that kids should be over protected; because I think understanding how the world works is important. Anyway, I think that the beautiful ideas of religion can be taught, such as learning the skill of forgiveness, learning how to think of others, learning how to be thankful, learning to say a prayer, etc.

I don't know if Mooghead wanted a discussion on religion or whether he wanted to know if anyone here had a belief in the existence of God.

Follow up on Dumbo: watched it. That train going through mountainous Florida was cute (Florida's palm trees grow in the perfectly flat part of the state and there are a few gentle hills in parts of the state but in those areas, you are more likely to see oak trees). Anyway, it was very cute. Ha. And not too long.

I am frankly disgusted by the posts of GratefulFan in this topic. He/she is trying to spin a perfectly honest personal experience by magicalfreddiemercury into an example of bigotry by the latter, with phrases like "You're consistent at least in undervaluing the experiences of others. If you felt a lack of respect directed at anything other than what I felt were poor and prejudicial arguments,"

GratefulFan is pretending to occupy a moral high ground, but seems perfectly content to insult those who feel victimized by exponents of religious fanaticism, because according to GratefulFan, apparently religious fanaticism has more right to be protected than secularism. Naturally, another GratefulFan post is now coming up in which I will be painted as an extremist dishonestly twisting GratefulFan's words for my great purpose of establishing a totalitarian communist state, but I trust that others in this topic will be sufficiently intelligent to see through that rhetoric.

The overwhelming assumption I get from this topic is that GratefulFan is extremely hostile towards secularism, and will resort to subtle and sneaky ways to attempt to undermine the integrity of those who do not agree with him/her. This is behaviour appropriate to Fox News, it is in no way compatible with, say, basic human decency, honesty or civilization.