True Christian Website that speaks of why religion is WRONG!!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I'm not talking about christianity only. I'm talking about all religion in this world. I use the term 'priest' since I don't know other term best to mention religion figure's head. I don't think 'shaman' would fit.

No comments on what's written on bible. Bible is written after Jesus died by his disciples. The authenticity of bible in question so it's best not to mentioned about.

Anyway, religion i'm talking about is general religion. It could be Jews ( If you are Jewish ), or Islam or Buddhist or Hindus or Taoisme or Confucianisme.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by EasternShadow]

i only read through the segment entitled: Tower of Babal

all i found was a liberals spin,
and bashing the anti-Affirmative Action crowd,
and dissing 'G0d' by the 'We-Are-One'= Kumb-by-yah singers in the world.

it was a Tedious read... with little of interest or even dry humor, satire


3 thumbs down, for the sites presentation


but 3 thumbs up for being fundamentally correct

Originally posted by EasternShadow
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I'm not talking about christianity only. I'm talking about all religion in this world. I use the term 'priest' since I don't know other term best to mention religion figure's head. I don't think 'shaman' would fit.

No comments on what's written on bible. Bible is written after Jesus died by his disciples. The authenticity of bible in question so it's best not to mentioned about.

Anyway, religion i'm talking about is general religion. It could be Jews ( If you are Jewish ), or Islam or Buddhist or Hindus or Taoisme or Confucianisme.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by EasternShadow]

I have no problem with a religious education; that is, teaching them the diversity of beliefs around the world. But teaching them morals from religious texts? This has no practical value and could potentially be confusing and damaging. All a child needs is loving, caring adults in their lives to teach them practical, real morality and ethics. Why muck it up with mystical nonsense?

Furthermore, I find it not fair to bash on all religions in this world just because the problem in Bible. But then again I don't think Bible would have so much problem now if only Jesus would have written God's message while his alive instead of his disciple 60 years later.
But hey, who am I to say such things.

Originally posted by EasternShadow
Furthermore, I find it not fair to bash on all religions in this world just because the problem in Bible. But then again I don't think Bible would have so much problem now if only Jesus would have written God's message while his alive instead of his disciple 60 years later.
But hey, who am I to say such things.

Well, the non-Abrahamic religions deserve criticism simply due to their own inherent flaws, not because of problems with the bible. The point is that children are better off learning morality in the absence of religious texts.

St Udio

i only read through the segment entitled: Tower of Babal

all i found was a liberals spin,
and bashing the anti-Affirmative Action crowd,
and dissing 'G0d' by the 'We-Are-One'= Kumb-by-yah singers in the world.

Lol, I looked at the one on high-fructose corn syrup.

Many movement atheists have a hard time staying on message. Linking agribusiness lobbying to Christian piety is absurd, and reduces the effectiveness of both the religious and the political arguments.

Trad!

Well, the non-Abrahamic religions deserve criticism simply due to their own inherent flaws, not because of problems with the bible. The point is that children are better off learning morality in the absence of religious texts.

Ah, you do trash religions besides the Abrahamic ones.

Please discuss the "inherent flaws" of a specific textual non-Abrahamic religion of your choice, and explain how reading that religion's texts would impede the moral formation of children, in your opinion.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits
Ah, you do trash religions besides the Abrahamic ones.

Please discuss the "inherent flaws" of a specific textual non-Abrahamic religion of your choice, and explain how reading that religion's texts would impede the moral formation of children, in your opinion.

I'm not talking about reading religious texts to children, I'm talking about using religions as the source of moral education for children. Since we've established the proper context I shall explain.

Generally all the world's religions make unproven and unsupported metaphysical claims and many lay claim to morality. Morality is discernible by children without the need to associate it with religions, their deities (for those religions which have them) and their unproven claims. Despite the problems with fearing deities and the punishments they may dole out for failing to heed the behavior they demand you'd at very least instill the false belief in children that morality is the sole domain of deities and is ultimately sourced to them. I hope that clears it up for you.

civil law punishment doesn't instill fear?

False belief is atheist's issue. It doesn't affect religious people.

Unproven claim doesn't make it false. Science can't dismissed theology. Actually, some part of theology is science. That's the truth.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by EasternShadow]

Originally posted by EasternShadow
civil law punishment doesn't instill fear?

It should, but those have real consequences that have immediate effect in their lifetime.

False belief is atheist's issue. It doesn't affect religious people.

Children look to adults to provide real and accurate information about the world. Since they don't have enough critical thinking skills to know an unproven claim from a proven one, representing unproven claims as real and tangible does a disservice to children.

Unproven claim doesn't make it false. Science can't dismissed theology. Actually, some part of theology is science. FACT.

An unproven claim is unbelievable. It's not the job of science to dismiss theology - even though it has quite effectively overturned huge numbers of religious claims - it's actually the job of theists to support their claims. And whether some theologies may have happened to get something correct about science doesn't lend it any credence.

None of this matters. Morality is not the domain of religions and religious morality tends to favor either a certain deity or their followers. The real-world morality of our times is often times far different from the ancient cultures which produced this "devine morality" since the modern social zeitgeist has shifted so much since then. Simply put, religious moral instruction is not only unnecessary but potentially harmful to a developing mind.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
None of this matters. Morality is not the domain of religions and religious morality tends to favor either a certain deity or their followers. The real-world morality of our times is often times far different from the ancient cultures which produced this "devine morality" since the modern social zeitgeist has shifted so much since then. Simply put, religious moral instruction is not only unnecessary but potentially harmful to a developing mind.

This is where you're wrong. Confucianisme and Taoisme are religion and they have no deities or 'divine' followers. Their principles are strictly based on morale codes and philosophy.

Originally posted by EasternShadow

This is where you're wrong. Confucianisme and Taoisme are religion and they have no deities or 'divine' followers. Their principles are strictly based on morale codes and philosophy.

I've already addressed the fact that some religions do not feature deities or personal deities. Even when teaching children within the context of those religions you're still implying the association of morality with a religion that makes unproven metaphysical claims. The same problems still exist.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by EasternShadow

This is where you're wrong. Confucianisme and Taoisme are religion and they have no deities or 'divine' followers. Their principles are strictly based on morale codes and philosophy.

I've already addressed the fact that some religions do not feature deities or personal deities. Even when teaching children within the context of those religions you're still implying the association of morality with a religion that makes unproven metaphysical claims. The same problems still exist.

I fail to see how unproven claims by religions could influence your thought of dismissing positive values such as morality. I understand your fear children lack of critical thinking. But unicorn, ogre, fairies and such are mythical unproven metaphysical claims too. Yet we tell stories about them to our child everyday. Doesn't that bother you too?

Originally posted by EasternShadow

I fail to see how unproven claims by religions could influence your thought of dismissing positive values such as morality.

Because positive morality can be taught without associating it with religion. I believe I've explained some problems that could arise.

I understand your fear children lack of critical thinking. But unicorn, ogre, fairies and such are mythical unproven metaphysical claims too. Yet we tell stories about them to our child everyday. Doesn't that bother you too?

Do you associate morality with them? Do you present to children that such mythical creatures actually exist? If so I'd say that would be a problem.

Originally posted by EasternShadow

Originally posted by sassyncute

This sort of thing is rife in the main religions. I hope this can show people that religion is no good and should not be entered into. Children need protecting from religion till the age they become adults.

I ask you too read through the WHOLE website and all the stories.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by sassyncute]

I disagree. Children need to be exposed to religion at least to understand the concept of morality. You wouldn't want your child to be lost in spiritual and doesn't have the slightest idea of what's wrong or right. Surely he/she can learn that crime is punishable by law but that doesn't teach him/her how to be humble, compassion, benevolent, loving etc.. I don't think their school teachers can teach them better than a priest. Make sure you have enough theology background to differentiate what's god'w word and what's priest's own opinion. That's way you can monitor and make sure your child mindset is not being manipulate by religious elders.

Morality has nothing at all to do with religion. Period. Religion teaches that morality is conditional (my morality versus your morality) and is extremely confusing to a clean mind. Children get savaged by fundamentalist religions, and most never recover.

For every Islamic suicide bomber, there was once a little boy or little girl who could've used a parent that didn't shove religion down his/her throat.

Generally all the world's religions make unproven and unsupported metaphysical claims

So do all the secular cultures I have ever heard of. So do all the branches of scholarship I have ever heard of, which touch on real events or things.

Metaphysical speculation simply is not peculiar to religion. All the speculation, whether religious, cultural or scholarly, is "supported" to the apparent satisfaction of the speculator, but unproven. This is inevitable, since any "proof" of the assumptions would be circular.

I don't see any impersonally valid reason why the metaphysical assumptions of the Bhagavad Gita, to name a widely read non-Abrahamic religious text, would not furnish an excellent foundation for a child's moral development. As it happens, the Gita's metaphysical assumptions are not my personal favorites, but that is completely uniformative about whether or not they are correct.

And it is not even clear what their correctness would have to do with their developmental efficacy. Absent some argument on your part, I don't see why a good moral system would not be robust against inaccuracies in its advocates' metaphysics.

they demand you'd at very least instill the false belief in children that morality is the sole domain of deities

Funny you should mention that. I think the Gita is very clear that morality is the domain of humans. It really wouldn't seem to occur to Krishna to claim he was moral from any human perspective. He is the ground of being. Arjuna is the one who has morality, the one who even has moral problems.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by eight bits]

reply to post by eight bits


So if morality can be taught, understood and discerned from non-religious sources what then is the point of insisting on a religious moral education as EasternShadow asserts?

So if morality can be taught, understood and discerned from non-religious sources what then is the point of insisting on a religious moral education as EasternShadow asserts?

I can't speak for ES, of course, and besides, he seems to be a good advocate of his viewpoint. So, just speaking for me:

Suppose that I really can't think of a better critique of moral consequentialism (say) than is found in the Bhagavad Gita. Why shouldn't I be able to use that?

What does it matter whether or not Krishna existed, if the arguments attributed to him are worth considering? Why would I use any different source that tries to make similar points, if the points which bear on my teaching objectives aren't made better?

(No, Trad, ties do not favor your metaphysical assumptions and religious beliefs, except when you are deciding about your own teaching.)

Originally posted by eight bits
Suppose that I really can't think of a better critique of moral consequentialism (say) than is found in the Bhagavad Gita. Why shouldn't I be able to use that?

You can if you'd like. I find it extraneous since morals can be taught without it. If you feel that a religious book offers great advice, teach it directly to your children. Sending them off with a book or to a priest or guru indicates you don't wish to simply provide moral instruction but to also initiate religious inculcation.

What does it matter whether or not Krishna existed, if the arguments attributed to him are worth considering? Why would I use any different source that tries to make similar points, if the points which bear on my teaching objectives aren't made better?

(No, Trad, ties do not favor your metaphysical assumptions and religious beliefs, except when you are deciding about your own teaching.)

It matters if Krishna existed because you're teaching moral advice - something useful, practical and necessary - and associating it with a deity unproven to exist. When religious-sourced morality is taught as useful, true and necessary it tacitly lends credence to the metaphysical claims within. There is indeed a connection.

Sending them off with a book or to a priest or guru indicates you don't wish to simply provide moral instruction but to also initiate religious inculcation.

We were talking specifically about texts. The institution of "guru" has many aspects, some of them morally questionnable, in my view.

So, I would prefer to stay with texts. It was the non-Abrahamic textual religions that had "inherent flaws," in your view.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily be the best teacher of a chosen text, so I might well hire a "priest" as a teacher. Some priests are fine teachers, in my expereince.

But what of it? If I teach, or arrange the teaching of, the Bhagavad Gita, and it is wrong, then the child will perhaps grow by showing that it is wrong. If it is right, then the child will perhaps retain the right instruction.

Either way, my overall objective is to nurture someone into an adulthood that is independent of me. Lol, probably an adolescence independent of, if not outrightly antithetical, to me. Soon enough, then, if I succeed, the decisions will be being made by my erstwhile child, not by me.

I don't see any better plan than offering the best sources that I can find for each element of instruction, as best I am able to judge the quality of competing sources. I can only see a plan which you like better, and which somebody else likes less. Meh, that's not a lot to go on.

It matters if Krishna existed because you're teaching moral advice - something useful, practical and necessary - and associating it with a deity unproven to exist.

That's not an answer, that just restates the question.

Let me try again.

If Krishna's words offer good advice, then how would his existence improve the quality of his already-spoken words, or his non-existence detract from the quality of his already-spoken words?

Do not the words say what they say, either way?

When religious-sourced morality is taught as useful, true and necessary it tacitly lends credence to the metaphysical claims within. There is indeed a connection.

"Tacitly lends credence?" Says who? It states a hypothesis. The student takes it or leaves as the student sees fit.

If the student simply laps up whatever is being dished out, unmediated by critical thought, then that is a different problem which needs to be addressed on its own terms. It would have nothing to do with any "inherent flaws" in the content of what was being taught.


[edit on 9-8-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits
But what of it? If I teach, or arrange the teaching of, the Bhagavad Gita, and it is wrong, then the child will perhaps grow by showing that it is wrong. If it is right, then the child will perhaps retain the right instruction.

Why even use a religious text to teach morals when it is unnecessary? If you seek to simply teach morals why complicate it with religious claims that either the child must prove or disprove, believe or disbelieve? The object is to teach morality, isn't it?

That's not an answer, that just restates the question.

Let me try again.

If Krishna's words offer good advice, then how would his existence improve the quality of his already-spoken words, or his non-existence detract from the quality of his already-spoken words?

Do not the words say what they say, either way?

How will the child know any different that a deity may not exist if you're instructing him/her to accept the morality the deity espouses?

Why not use fables instead? Or anything else that does not come in the guise of authority since it is a religion...

"Tacitly lends credence?" Says who? It states a hypothesis. The student takes it or leaves as the student sees fit.

If the student simply laps up whatever is being dished out, unmediated by critical thought, then that is a different problem which needs to be addressed on its own terms. It would have nothing to do with any "inherent flaws" in the content of what was being taught.

What age student are you speaking of here? Children in need of learning morals most likely have not developed the critical thinking skills necessary to take things or leave them and most likely will take what is being dished out. This includes not only the morals, but the metaphysical claims and possibly the fear of deities, and/or anything else that accompanies the morals you intended to teach.

If people choose to do such things it's their life and their children's: have at it. But employing such a method just to teach morality has many potential pitfalls.