Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Blasphemy Challenge
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 134 (381432)
01-30-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by anastasia
01-30-2007 10:43 PM


quote:
One, it is an out-right mockery of the sacred beliefs of others, when dis-belief could be preached on its own 'merits'.
How is it mockery?
quote:
Two, several of the participants are much too young to even understand what they are blaspheming against, or whether they will ever regret it in the future.
So, how is this any different from indoctinating very young children into any given religious belief when they are far too young to understand what they are being taught to believe, or before they have the cognitive capability to truly examine those beliefs and freely choose them, or even if they will regret the time wasted in irrational belief in the future?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 10:43 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 01-31-2007 6:33 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 134 (382480)
02-04-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anastasia
01-31-2007 6:33 PM


quote:
Two, several of the participants are much too young to even understand what they are blaspheming against, or whether they will ever regret it in the future.
So, how is this any different from indoctinating very young children into any given religious belief when they are far too young to understand what they are being taught to believe, or before they have the cognitive capability to truly examine those beliefs and freely choose them, or even if they will regret the time wasted in irrational belief in the future?
quote:
For one, it is not indoctrinating anything. It is a stupid dare with a reward. It is about as meaningless as making me deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Right.
So, you do realize that you just contradicted your initial argument with this second one?
At first, you object to very young children being presented with the Blasphemy Challenge, because they don't "...even understand what they are blaspheming against, or whether they will ever regret it in the future."
But now, after I have essentially pointed out that this "Challenge" pales in comparison to the brainwashing most religions inflict upon very young children who are not old enough to "...even understand what they are blaspheming against, or whether they will ever regret it in the future.", you say it is merely a "stupid dare" and "meaningless".
Well, which is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 01-31-2007 6:33 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 11:56 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 134 (382572)
02-05-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by anastasia
02-04-2007 11:56 PM


Well, OK, but the point I was making, and still remains, is that using the issue of children being "too young to understand what they are blaspheming against and if they might regret their actions later in life" works both ways.
quote:
I, at least, did not have mockery of other religions as part of my religious training.
Then you are rare.
On the other hand, you probably learned to pity those who don't believe as you do, which is just a softer, less agressive form of mockery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 11:56 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 2:30 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 50 of 134 (382693)
02-05-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by anastasia
02-05-2007 2:30 PM


quote:
So, how does one blaspheme against the gods of atheism? I really wouldn't worry too much.
Er, what about all of the other gods of all the other religions of the world, ana?
Aren't you indoctrinating children to blaspheme all those other gods when you teach them any religion from a very young age, before they are cognitively able to really choose what to believe, or if to believe at all?
quote:
We all have time to un-believe, and if we don't, we haven't missed much.
That is a very disdainful attitude towards all of the people who have been damaged by religious upbringing.
I'd also say that a lot of people who believe for much of their life actually do miss out on a great deal of what life has to offer.
quote:
It takes a life-time to reach even a tenth of the perfection christianity asks of us, and only one moment to give it up. And it is not really challenging to teach atheism. Most so called 'christian' parents are doing a fine job of that already.
The point you are avoiding, ana, is the indoctrination of very young children in a religious belief before they are old enough to make a real choice.
What do you think would happen if religious instruction began at age 13 when a child is capable of critical thinking, instead of at age 2, when they are not?
Religious indoctrination of children is just like any other indoctrination, like racism or sexism.
To imply that it only "takes a moment" for a person raised to think blacks are inferior to whites or that women are inferior to men to "give it up" shows that you have no idea of the incredible power such indoctrination has over the psyches of people.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 2:30 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:05 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 134 (382695)
02-05-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by anastasia
02-05-2007 5:13 PM


quote:
An atheist is what you call a person who can't describe themselves without first acknowledging God. The name says it all.
No, an atheist is every person on the planet right up until they are taught to believe in the supernatural by somebody else, usualy when they are a defenseless child.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 5:13 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:11 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 134 (382707)
02-05-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by anastasia
02-05-2007 8:11 PM


quote:
That makes noooooo sense because every person on the planet has had enough 'god-sense' to make a religion since the beginning of recorded time. You can't find a single culture that has not recognized some type of deity, and still claim to be human.
Racism has always existed in every human society too.
Does that mean that we are all racists when we are born and we would all be racists even if nobody ever taught us to be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:11 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:48 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 134 (382710)
02-05-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by anastasia
02-05-2007 8:05 PM


quote:
Like what? Fornication without guilt?
No, like not having their genitals mutilated, or freedom from self-hatred because they are homosexual, or a woman. Or freedom from the fear of eternal damnation. Or freedom from the fear of knowledge.
What do you think would happen if religious instruction began at age 13 when a child is capable of critical thinking, instead of at age 2, when they are not?
quote:
I would think it was normal, about the age of bar and bat mitzvah's, confirmations, etc, not the age of potty-training.
So that means no claims about the existence of God, no attendance at temple or church, no celebrations of any religious holidays, no endorsement of any religion at all, until the age of 13.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:05 PM anastasia has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 95 of 134 (382873)
02-06-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by anastasia
02-05-2007 8:36 PM


quote:
The human mind has to leave its petty survival instincts behind to contemplate something which is beautiful.
No, not really.
Humans find things that are symmetrical, beautiful, and that is directly linked to survival instincts.
Assymetry in the appearence of a potential mate can be a sign of genetic abnormality, you see.
Also, the sorts of depicted landscapes that people find most pleasing correspond to those landscapes that, in our evolutionary history, would have been good places to find food and water.
There is good reason to believe, in other words, that our basic aesthetic sense is natural and evolved, just like our moral sense and everything else about us.
quote:
You may not recognize God, but you surely must recognize something beyond reality to fully appreciate art.
We all have active fantasy lives, ana. We imagine all sorts of things, when awake and also while dreaming, and if we are in good mental health we recognize that none of that is real.
On the other hand, why must we be able to recognize something "beyond reality" to appreciate art? Art is "real", isn't it?
In this thread, even though you don't realize it. you keep making bold proclamations regarding Cognitive Science and Psychology.
It appears that you are not aware of the rather significant body of research in those fields that adresses pretty much everything you have been claiming comes from our "godsense". I suggest being a bit more cautious in your claims until you have studied up on the relevant research a bit.
By the way, are you ever going to tell me where the "godsense" part of the body is that evolved just like the "emotions" part of the body evolved?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:36 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by anastasia, posted 02-07-2007 12:18 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 134 (382876)
02-06-2007 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by anastasia
02-05-2007 9:00 PM


quote:
I was an artist, and a poet, and I was forced to realize that the only way to define beauty is God.
Like I said, bone up on the science and you will realize how wrong you are.
Well, maybe you will.
quote:
You may certainly partake, but my original idea was that to shut yourself from religion was to shut yourself off from understanding so much of the symbolism of art.
But that's just knowledge about religious symbolism that every art-history major, regardless of religious belief, learns.
It has nothing to do with "Godsense", which is what you originally claimed.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 9:00 PM anastasia has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 134 (382877)
02-06-2007 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by anastasia
02-05-2007 10:56 PM


That's why people who are not taught don't have a god-sense. That's also why some are able to unlearn it.
quote:
Doesn't explain where it comes from though, does it?
Unless, of course, the teacher is God.
OK, let's assume that it comes from God.
Now what?
What have we learned? How has our understanding been increased? How can we test this conclusion to see if it is correct? How useful is this finding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 10:56 PM anastasia has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 134 (382878)
02-06-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by anastasia
02-05-2007 11:38 PM


quote:
So, now you want to say there is no god-sense, but a made-up story to fool the gullible. If this is your belief, then you do indeed have no religion, nothing beyond the natural to explain your existance, nothing but science to appease your searching mind. I can't imagine limiting my mind so much, when it has been given to me with so much capacity for something more.
So, is what you are saying is that it is less limiting of one's mind to observe a phenomena and say "I don't understand how this could happen, therefore Godidit"?
And are you saying that it is more limiting to your mind to look at a phenomena and say "I don't understand how this could be, so let's try to figure hout how it works so we can understand it."?
If so, then I guess your stance can be boiled down to:
Renaissance=Limited minds
Dark Ages=Unlimited Minds
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 11:38 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by anastasia, posted 02-07-2007 12:00 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 109 of 134 (383330)
02-07-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by anastasia
02-07-2007 12:00 AM


OK, so let us review your post that I commented upon:
quote:
So, now you want to say there is no god-sense, but a made-up story to fool the gullible. If this is your belief, then you do indeed have no religion, nothing beyond the natural to explain your existance, nothing but science to appease your searching mind. I can't imagine limiting my mind so much, when it has been given to me with so much capacity for something more.
I asked:
So, is what you are saying is that it is less limiting of one's mind to observe a phenomena and say "I don't understand how this could happen, therefore Godidit"?
You replied:
quote:
Of course not. All of us are welcome to observe and study phenomena, whether we believe God created it or not.
But you seem to be saying in your first post quoted above that one is limiting their mind by sticking to naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena instead of also including supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.
IOW, you seem to be saying that it's "limiting", in your opinion, to not allow "Godidit" as an explanation for phenomena.
Please correct me if I'm misrepresented you.
The reason I bring this up is that it has been shown through many centuries that the best way to learn anything reliable about anything natural is to study it using methodological naturalism i.e. the scientific method.
Supernatural explanations are investigative dead ends that freeze inquiry in it's tracks.
Tell me, would you actually like to return to a Dark Age mentality, where superstition and irrationality ruled over all?

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by anastasia, posted 02-07-2007 12:00 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by anastasia, posted 02-07-2007 7:03 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 113 of 134 (383346)
02-07-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by anastasia
02-07-2007 6:44 PM


quote:
Nah, you have forgotten already this; we need to dictate more if our imagination takes us beyond the scope of sanity. It is not belief in religion alone that can drive men to insanity; there is lust, money, ambition, and power, to name a few.
Nobody is saying anything about "insanity".
There are, and have been over the millenia, plenty of sane people killing, oppressing, abusing, discriminating, and hating because they believe that their god requires/allows them to.
I mean, all those good Christians who orchestrated, cheered on, or fought in the Holy Crusades were, by and large, perfectly sane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by anastasia, posted 02-07-2007 6:44 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2007 7:31 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 118 of 134 (383367)
02-07-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by anastasia
02-07-2007 7:03 PM


quote:
Why do you keep making science and relgion competitors? It is so unneccesary when you could just accept the fact that they deal with different areas.
Of course they do, and I don't believe it is me that is making them compete. I do think that you are, though.
Remember, it is you who seems to have chosen the supernatural "explanation" and rejected the naturalistic one WRT the origins of moral behavior.
quote:
It is limiting to dictate your imagination so much that it can not concieve of anything beyond the natural, not 'instead of' the natural.
Well, nobody does this. Everybody imagines stuff, and makes stuff up, and dreams up makebelieve.
What we are talking about, however, is the way to find out what is true about the world.
And "making stuff up" and deciding to accept it as truth is not a good way to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by anastasia, posted 02-07-2007 7:03 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 12:23 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 134 (383371)
02-07-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
02-07-2007 7:31 PM


There's also nothing insane about tearing the foreskin off the penis of your newborn child for religious custom, even though there is no medical reason to do so.
And the vast majority of Nazis and Nazi supporters weren't insane, even though they participated in or condoned terrible acts.
The Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Milgram Experiment both show that otherwise normal, perfectly sane people can be rather easily and quickly led to do, and even enjoy, despicable and horrible acts against fellow human beings, given the correct social influences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2007 7:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024