|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Blasphemy Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How is it mockery?
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Like I said, bone up on the science and you will realize how wrong you are. Well, maybe you will.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, so let us review your post that I commented upon:
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024