BBO Discussion Forums: Brainwashing the kids - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 11 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Brainwashing the kids My opinion

Poll: Brainwashing the kids (55 member(s) have cast votes)

Brainwashing the kids

  1. No one under 16 should be taught, Religion, Politics or Racism (11 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  2. Yes we should brainwash our own children to our point of view (12 votes [21.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.82%

  3. I have another view (32 votes [58.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.18%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#141 User is online   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,327
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2008-January-03, 19:05

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

"I was stating that there remains sufficient ignorance about certain ultimate questions (leaving aside Douglas Adam's brilliant suggestion that the answer to the ultimate question is, in fact: 42)"



Great I was just going to read his books, thanks alot..........for telling me the end! :lol:

It isn't even close to the end: the answer is 42, but what is the question?

BTW, the BBC radio show is far better, in my view, to the book.... and the movie was dreack.... don't judge the work by the movie :) Enjoy... it's a hoot
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#142 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,311
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-January-03, 19:09

mikeh, on Jan 3 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

"I was stating that there remains sufficient ignorance about certain ultimate questions (leaving aside Douglas Adam's brilliant suggestion that the answer to the ultimate question is, in fact: 42)"



Great I was just going to read his books, thanks alot..........for telling me the end! :lol:

It isn't even close to the end: the answer is 42, but what is the question?

BTW, the BBC radio show is far better, in my view, to the book.... and the movie was dreack.... don't judge the work by the movie :) Enjoy... it's a hoot

Thanks for all the fish.
0

#143 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-January-03, 19:09

Jimmy,

I am going to attempt to put your statements into logic format - sorry if I get your meanings wrong.

I am a logical person
I believe in God
Therefore, it cannot be illogical to believe in God

This argument is a logic error.

From Wikpedia:

Quote

Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)


Likewise, influences other than "logic" can cause your belief if God; hence, the argument is invalid.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#144 User is offline   DrTodd13 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,156
  • Joined: 2003-July-03
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted 2008-January-03, 19:49

All this line of reasoning states is that it is not impossible for someone who claims to be logical to believe in God. I don't think this is a fallacy of the consequent though although it is a poorly reasoned argument. To make it leak proof, you'd have to also claim that a person who claims to be logical is always logical in every circumstance and never makes a mistake.
0

#145 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-January-03, 19:54

[quote name='Hannie' date='Jan 3 2008, 06:48 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 2 2008, 03:32 PM'] that's fine, han, but do you think either believing or not believing that sentient life exists in other parts of the universe is inherently illogical? i don't, fwiw [/quote]
As others, I don't understand what you mean by this. I'm also not sure that arguing with you about semantics is interesting.[/quote]
i'm not arguing semantics... the "scientific method" depends, among other things, on something being falsifiable... i just asked whether or not a belief in something (anything) not falsifiable is inherently illogical, it's a simple question
[quote]I don't think that it is possible to come to a conclusion about other sentient life by mere logic.[/quote]
i never said nor implied it was... but if you're right, and i believe you are, then neither can such a belief be called illogical
[quote]I find it hard to understand how someone can completely believe something for which they have very little evidence.[/quote]
we (not only you and i but jdonn and i) don't seem to be communicating... it doesn't matter how hard it is to understand or even whether or not a person's belief is true (not in this context) ... i'm not remotely arguing about that
[quote name='Hannie' date='Jan 3 2008, 06:57 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 3 2008, 06:32 PM'] [quote]~~So in these rapidly shrinking areas of human ignorance, there remains the possiblity that the final answer will involve a god. So, from my perspective, it is not irrational to argue that maybe a god exists, but the bulk of the evidence, it seems to me, suggests that a god, in the sense of the entities worshipped by religious believers, is a low-probability answer, and, as such it is irrational to believe that such a god does in fact exist.[/quote]
i don't understand this part... how is it rational to argue that ("maybe") a god exists but irrational to argue that a *particular* god exists? [/quote]
I think the word "maybe" was relevant in Mike's sentence. By taking away the word the meaning of the sentence changes.

How can you think of yourself as being a logical man when you are this careless with language. You can't understand logical arguments without a language to work in.[/quote]
i didn't take the word away, i made sure i included it... but you seem to be saying that it's rational to argue that *maybe* a god exists but irrational to argue that a particular god exists... how can that be so?
[quote name='jdonn' date='Jan 3 2008, 07:22 PM'] When you say[quote name='you']i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?[/quote] then you seem to strongly imply that you think your belief IS logical. [/quote]
ok fine, for the sake of argument let's say i do "stongly imply" that.. so what? barmar didn't imply anything, he asserted something... i know you can see the difference and you know the burden is on him...
[quote]You are trying very hard to avoid saying that directly, but it's clearly what you think (isn't it??) So I am asking a simple question (not trying to answer your original question, which I never was.) My question is: Why is your belief logical? As I said before, you of course can refuse to answer but that only leads me to even further believe what I already do, which is that you have no good reason at all.[/quote]
i didn't refuse to answer, i tried to by using analogies, which is an accepted way to make a point...
[quote]I'll put this another way. My position is that your belief is not logical. Yours, I am assuming, is that it is logical. Obviously someone has to say why they hold their position or it's not a very useful discussion. I have sort of done so, by saying that there is no strong evidence supporting logic in your position.[/quote]
now we're getting somewhere (i think)... you have stated a thing ("My position is that your belief is not logical.") and (according to you - "i am assuming") i have "strongly implied" a thing... i refuse to believe that you mean it when you say my position is illogical because you can see "... no strong evidence ..."

1) strong evidence of a position must be seen for that position to be logical
2) there is no strong evidence seen to deny the existence of a god
therefore denying the existence of a god is illogical
[quote]You can either dispute that by presenting strong evidence, offer another reason you think it's logical, or....well say anything else you want, but only the prior two options would continue the discussion in any meaningful way.[/quote]
what is it exactly that you want me to dispute? you now insist that the one who you 'assume' has 'strongly implied' a thing has the burden over the one who actually asserted a thing... you have several times constructed straw men to knock over when i never said that which you accuse me of saying
[quote name='Winstonm' date='Jan 3 2008, 08:09 PM']Jimmy,

I am going to attempt to put your statements into logic format - sorry if I get your meanings wrong.

I am a logical person
I believe in God
Therefore, it cannot be illogical to believe in God

This argument is a logic error. 

From Wikpedia:

[quote]Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.) [/quote]

Likewise, influences other than "logic" can cause your belief if God; hence, the argument is invalid.[/quote]
sorry winston but that isn't what i said (or, as jdonn might say, that isn't what i strongly implied) ... this started (as i said in a post a couple of pages past) when barmar made the statement that a thing not subject to the scientific method is illogical... i simply asked him how that can be so... that's all i did, and it's led to all of this... i'm being asked to defend, out of order, a position that i was "assumed" to "strongly imply" ...

i tried to tell jdonn that it is possible i am wrong and barmar is right regarding his (barmar's) assertion, but how am i to know this if he (barmar) is unable or unwilling to answer my question?
[quote name='DrTodd13' date='Jan 3 2008, 08:49 PM']All this line of reasoning states is that it is not impossible for someone who claims to be logical to believe in God.  I don't think this is a fallacy of the consequent though although it is a poorly reasoned argument.  To make it leak proof, you'd have to also claim that a person who claims to be logical is always logical in every circumstance and never makes a mistake.[/quote]
that pretty much sums it up except i haven't made any argument - yet.. i first need to know if that is in fact what was being asserted... if so, *that* needs to be argued, not the converse
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#146 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-January-03, 20:01

Dr. Todd,

I defer to your education and better understanding.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#147 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2008-January-03, 20:15

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

what is it exactly that you want me to dispute? you now insist that the one who you 'assume' has 'strongly implied' a thing has the burden over the one who actually asserted a thing... you have several times constructed straw men to knock over when i never said that which you accuse me of saying

Burden shmurden, I'm simply asking you to answer a question. You won't, ok. We all know what that means, which is that you have no answer (for something you obviously believe is true! Who cares if I'm "assuming" that you "implied" it. If I'm wrong about what you believe, say so! Silence can be deafening.)
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#148 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,796
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-January-03, 21:01

There have been too many posts since I last visited this topic for me to try to address each of them directly.

Someone asked whether I consider religious belief to be illogical. I tried to be conciliatory yesterday, but I've changed my mind. I think it IS illogical. Logic is basically drawing conclusions by going from known facts and using well-accepted rules of deduction. E.g. "when it rains, the ground gets wet" + "it's raining" => "the ground is wet". Faith assumes a particular conclusion, without any evidence or accepted line of reasoning. You believe something simply because you want or hope it's true.

Someone else posted a long message about how the bible is not necessarily intended to be read literally, or treated as history, but it's still a good teaching tool. But the bible includes many messages which we no longer consider to be moral: keeping slaves, abusing women, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. How do you decide which parts to use, and which to skip? Obviously we must use our inherent sense of morality -- but if we have that, then why do we need the bible or religion to define morality?

Someone else asked about belief in alien life. I don't KNOW that there's life elsewhere, and I don't expect us to prove it any time soon. What I believe is that it's LIKELY that there's life elsewhere in the universe. My reasoning is that if something can happen once, it can happen more than once, given enough chances. We know that life arose once (we're here), the universe is incredibly old and huge, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the Earth, so rules of probability suggest that it has probably happened in other places.

#149 User is offline   sceptic 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,343
  • Joined: 2004-January-03

Posted 2008-January-03, 23:02

wrongly or rightly a belief is a belief and does not have to be backed up by fact science, logigal or illogical thought or anything else, surely it is exactly what it says on the tin " a belief"

many misguided people have beliefs, it would appear that, the one thing belief does for you is, it closes your mind

I do not believe in God, but I do think there is probaly a great being (what ever that may prove to be) out there in a different world in a different dimension, something we can not yet comprehand or just plain cleverer than us.

I do not think that, that is any way to base my values on life trying to do what I think they would want us to do. Being brainwashed as a child into my parents religious beliefs is basically wrong (imho) What makes me laugh out loud, is the arrogance of most religious people I have met in the fact they actually think they have got it right.
0

#150 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2008-January-03, 23:35

[didn't like my post so removed it]
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#151 User is offline   Codo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,373
  • Joined: 2003-March-15
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany
  • Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2008-January-04, 02:22

sceptic, on Jan 4 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

I do not think that, that is any way to base my values on life trying to do what I think they would want us to do. Being brainwashed as a child into my parents religious beliefs is basically wrong (imho) What makes me laugh out loud, is the arrogance of most religious people I have met in the fact they actually think they have got it right.

So the religious education I give my kids to make them good and understanding people is brainwashing and wrong. I really believe that this is the right way, else I had choosen another one. This makes you laugh out loud?

If you try to educate your kids to good and understanding people in your atheists way, this is great and wonderful, they can make their own descissions, find their own good way. And of course your way is the right way?

Sorry this is illogical and narrowminded.

We all believe that our way to treat our children is the right way. And if we compare it to other possible ways, we may even think (believe?) that our way is superior to some of the other ways. But to laugh out loud about other ways of education shows simply a missing understanding or respect for different views of right and wrong.
Kind Regards

Roland


Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
0

#152 User is offline   sceptic 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,343
  • Joined: 2004-January-03

Posted 2008-January-04, 03:49

I think you can bring your kids up with a good set of values and raise them as decent people without indoctrinating them into a religion


I wish someone would do a social experiment

get 100 orphans from all religious walks of life and educate (this does not mean indoctrinate (or I prefer the term brainwash)) them in normal things and give them equal exposure to all main stream forms of religion (I say this as there are some pretty weird people about that have created some odd religions or cults)

Then when they get older (adulthood), see if any what religious path these people have chosen to take, what ever it is it has been their choice and that is something that a lot religious peoples kids do not get.

[QUOTE]If you try to educate your kids to good and understanding people in your atheists way, this is great and wonderful, they can make their own descissions, find their own good way. And of course your way is the right way?[QUOTE]

You need to read my earlier posts, I have never claimed mine the right way, but I do believe certain religions are extremely un healthy lifestyles to follow, generally I think that religious indoctrination of children is tantamount to ethnic cleansing (at a more extreme level)

and I also believe that whilst most religions seem to have settled down a bit and become less radical the tendancy is still there to go back a few hundred or thoudand years to reinstate torqemada and the like

Check out what the current pope thinks we should be battling against "Satan" now please, I thought this crap went out with the invention of the brain
0

#153 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-January-04, 05:31

jdonn, on Jan 3 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

what is it exactly that you want me to dispute? you now insist that the one who you 'assume' has 'strongly implied' a thing has the burden over the one who actually asserted a thing... you have several times constructed straw men to knock over when i never said that which you accuse me of saying

Burden shmurden, I'm simply asking you to answer a question. You won't, ok. We all know what that means, which is that you have no answer (for something you obviously believe is true! Who cares if I'm "assuming" that you "implied" it. If I'm wrong about what you believe, say so! Silence can be deafening.)

as i've simply asked you to answer questions... you won't, ok, we all know what that means...silence can be deafening... but if you believe the burden of proof in this type argument is meaningless, that explains a lot

i have defended what i 'strongly implied' by offering analogies and syllogisms, using your own words as starting points... so far you haven't disputed any of them

barmar, on Jan 3 2008, 10:01 PM, said:

Someone asked whether I consider religious belief to be illogical.  I tried to be conciliatory yesterday, but I've changed my mind.  I think it IS illogical.  Logic is basically drawing conclusions by going from known facts and using well-accepted rules of deduction.  E.g. "when it rains, the ground gets wet" + "it's raining" => "the ground is wet".  Faith assumes a particular conclusion, without any evidence or accepted line of reasoning.  You believe something simply because you want or hope it's true.

you keep making statements like this but everyone who has read even a little on the subject knows that some of the finest minds throughout history have and do offer logical and philosophically sound "accepted line(s) of reasoning" ... have you read any of those arguments? how are they illogical?

Quote

Obviously we must use our inherent sense of morality -- but if we have that, then why do we need the bible or religion to define morality?

you might not need the bible, but you do need something... if you have an 'inherent sense of morality', what is it a product of? is it totally subjective or are there things you believe all "moral" people hold in common?

Quote

Someone else asked about belief in alien life.  I don't KNOW that there's life elsewhere, and I don't expect us to prove it any time soon.  What I believe is that it's LIKELY that there's life elsewhere in the universe.  My reasoning is that if something can happen once, it can happen more than once, given enough chances.  We know that life arose once (we're here), the universe is incredibly old and huge, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the Earth, so rules of probability suggest that it has probably happened in other places.

ok, is your belief in the likelihood of sentient life elsewhere irrational or illogical? i'd say no, even though your reasoning might not be perfect in the matter (the fact that something happened once doesn't mean it can happen more than once, given enough time - necessarily)

sceptic, on Jan 4 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

many misguided people have beliefs, it would appear that, the one thing belief does for you is, it closes your mind

I do not believe in God, but I do think there is probaly a great being (what ever that may prove to be) out there in a different world in a different dimension, something we can not yet comprehand or just plain cleverer than us.

if belief closes ones mind does disbelief open it? and fwiw i don't personally think your belief in the possibility of a 'great being' is irrational or illogical
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#154 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,723
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2008-January-04, 07:35

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

you keep making statements like this but everyone who has read even a little on the subject knows that some of the finest minds throughout history have and do offer logical and philosophically sound "accepted line(s) of reasoning" ... have you read any of those arguments? how are they illogical?

This is a ridiculous comment

Yes... Many of the finest minds throughout history have offered logical proofs for the existence of God. However, there is good reason that this same territory continuously gets revisited: None of these worthies has every sucessfully offered any kind of conclusive proof. (If any of them had, the nature of philosophy would look a hell of a lot different)

Case in point: The Roman Catholic Church maintains that it is possible to logically prove the existence of God and offers Aquinas' Quinquae viae as "proof". [There is a decent summary at http://en.wikipedia....i/Quinquae_viae]. However, various Protestant churches have very different opinions about the validity of these proofs.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#155 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,366
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2008-January-04, 07:52

Barmar offered an explanation of why (s)he thinks faith is illogical. What more do you want, Jimmy? Nobody asks you to agree.

As for this burden schurmden thing - I think it's perfectly ok to make blanket statements without references or reasoning. Let alone "proof" (the concepts discussed in this thread are way to vague for "proofs" to apply anyway). Those who don't like blanket statements can just ignore them. Those who want references can find them with google.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#156 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,690
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2008-January-04, 08:31

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

you might not need the bible, but you do need something... if you have an 'inherent sense of morality', what is it a product of? is it totally subjective or are there things you believe all "moral" people hold in common?

In my opinion, asking what morality is "a product of" is like asking what language is "a product of."

We evolved as social creatures. Both language and morality provided our ancestors significant advantages in coordinating activities and in maintaining group cohesion. Now our brains possess an increased ability to understand both linguistic and moral concepts.

Surely all basic moral concepts originally passed from generation to generation in the form of interesting tales repeated -- and embellished upon -- by the wiser elders in the successful groups. Claiming that god was responsible for those concepts and stories gave them more weight and gave the elders more authority.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#157 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,366
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2008-January-04, 08:52

PassedOut, on Jan 4 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

Both language and morality provided our ancestors significant advantages in coordinating activities and in maintaining group cohesion.

This obviously answers what causes morality, but it occurs to me that some people (probably including Jimmy but I should let him speak for himself) seeks the answer to what justifies morality in religion. As I understand it, it is Todd's agenda in the "Axioms" thread as well.

Personally I'm not interested in that question (not even sure if I would consider it meaningful) but if I were to study ethics I would probably have to ask the question how particular philosophers come to their ethical axioms. For example, in one of my favorite philosophy books, "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker, the author frequently refers to "moral imperatives", such as the idea that men and women should be treated equally. I wondered if those "imperatives" were just a hotpot of the author's humble opinions, or whether they fitted into some kind of ethical "system", whatever that might mean.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#158 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,690
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2008-January-04, 09:33

helene_t, on Jan 4 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

This obviously answers what causes morality, but it occurs to me that some people (probably including Jimmy but I should let him speak for himself) seeks the answer to what justifies morality in religion.

Yes, that's a much tougher subject. It's one of the many things I'm not qualified even to discuss. But I do find it (very) interesting to read what others have to say.

I, too, wonder about phrases such as "moral imperatives" (but not enough to spend the time to dig deeper into the matter). So much to learn, and so few years to live...
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#159 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,311
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-January-04, 10:07

Whether you are for brainwashing or not we all can only strive to be as good as Britney Spears as a parent. Thank goodness for role models.

http://www.tmz.com/c...britney-spears/
0

#160 User is online   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,327
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2008-January-04, 11:05

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

Quote

Obviously we must use our inherent sense of morality -- but if we have that, then why do we need the bible or religion to define morality?

you might not need the bible, but you do need something... if you have an 'inherent sense of morality', what is it a product of? is it totally subjective or are there things you believe all "moral" people hold in common?

Quote

Someone else asked about belief in alien life.  I don't KNOW that there's life elsewhere, and I don't expect us to prove it any time soon.  What I believe is that it's LIKELY that there's life elsewhere in the universe.  My reasoning is that if something can happen once, it can happen more than once, given enough chances.  We know that life arose once (we're here), the universe is incredibly old and huge, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the Earth, so rules of probability suggest that it has probably happened in other places.

ok, is your belief in the likelihood of sentient life elsewhere irrational or illogical? i'd say no, even though your reasoning might not be perfect in the matter (the fact that something happened once doesn't mean it can happen more than once, given enough time - necessarily)

Two points to which I wish to reply:

1. Moral code.

Unless you argue that atheists, buddhists and others are amoral people, it seesm hard to defend the proposition that we need divinely mandated moral codes.

The biblical moral code is inherently contradictory and anyone living by it today would almost certainly end up in jail. Abraham's threatening to kill his son, for example, would see him in serious trouble, and I don't think many judges or juries would be persuaded by a protestation that god told him to do it. And the bible is replete with people exposing their family to rape (I think Lot did this), and it, in other areas, mandates the murder of others.

It is demonstrable, not only from the bible which reflects the moral beliefs of its times, but from other historical material, that moral values change. The crusading knights, and indeed the knights of Christendom, thought nothing of mass murder, rape and pillage of conquered towns... even towns inhabited by fellow Christians.

I forget the name of the Catholic lord charged with putting down a heresy, who told his troops to kill everyone, knowing that in doing so they would slaughter many true believers, uninfected by the heresy... he said, and I don't have the exact quote.. that the Lord would sort out his own... the true believers would go to heaven while the heretics went to hell.

I can't imagine a modern western leader giving such an order, or having it obeyed.

So morality is a social artefact, not a divine directive, and only the most pigheadedly blind would argue that this is not so.


2. Belief or thought

The proposition that, based on available evidence, someone believes that there is a probability of sentient life elsewhere contains within it a recognition that there is a (lesser) probability that no such life exists. In other words, this 'belief' is actually a thought or a hypothesis recognized by its holder as contingent upon the evidence and subject to re-evaluation... and, most importantly, it is not an article of faith.

Thus it is not equivalent to the absolute certainty that religion requires of its victims: the surety WITHOUT EVIDENCE that one's particular god exists.

If you really can't see the difference, well, I feel sorry, not for you since you need no sympathy, cloaked as you are in your invincible ignorance, but for the rest of us. Not because any one true believer is a risk, but because this mindset plays an enormous role in American politics. Indeed, it is arguable that this mindset is responsible for the Iraq debacle, since Bush is proud of the fact that he makes his decisions after praying for guidance... and getting it! When god speaks to you and tells you to do what you always wanted to do, it is a very liberating thing for you, but not for the people you intend to kill with god's blessing. When god told Bush to go ahead with the invasion, we got hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless billions of dollars wasted, and a clean conscience on the man who caused it all... after all, he has NO doubt about the existence of the god who gave him the green light.

Had Bush entertained any doubt about his faith... were he a rational being, then bin laden would probably have been brought to justice by now (imagine the armed forces in Iraq being in Afghanistan all this time, imagine spending the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq in pursuit of bin Laden). And then imagine spending a fraction of the cost of the war on terror on helping moderate Palestinians build a prosperous democracy without guns.... reversing the image of the US in the islamic world.... but he couldn't do that, and the US can't do that, largely for religious reasons.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

  • 11 Pages +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users