Rabbattack
Smash Journeyman
Debate on how it is wrong or right. I know which answer will be the most chosen.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Considering that few americans consider themselves atheists in the first place, the statistic isn't that surprisingBased on a 2013 study regarding the religious affiliation of U.S prison inmates, only 0.07% were found to be Atheist. That's not to say that the law is a perfect guideline for ethical behavior (far from it), but it says a lot about the moral efficacy of religion if most criminals are in fact religious.
Indeed.Considering that few americans consider themselves atheists in the first place, the statistic isn't that surprising
Didn't imply causation, only likelihood. Implying causation would be to say 'therefore atheism leads to moral behavior' or 'therefore religion is to blame for criminality'.Wait what
Correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because there aren't that many criminal atheist means that atheism makes people less likley to be criminals.
I wouldn't be surprised if their religion in general is insignifigant in the eyes of many of these criminals.
What about the repeated instances of commanded genocide and him allowing his own son to be murdered despite having the ability to stop it at any time.@ #HBC | Acrostic You are right, I should have worded it differently. I do not want to give the impression that religion is a better method of teaching morals and values, just simply stating that the values that we hold come from religion in certain cases.
Precisely.What about the repeated instances of commanded genocide and him allowing his own son to be murdered despite having the ability to stop it at any time.
That's not it. I believe that when it comes to Christianity being one of the largest denominations in the United States it largely has to do with the fact that your average American is largely uneducated and prefers to remain blissfully ignorant of the truth. Few people who claim to be adherents to the faith have completed reading the Bible (I have) or attend church on a regular basis (I do). The prior which I did because I was being indoctrinated in the faith and the latter because I wish to still continue to have a relationship with my mother who is a religious zealot, however has no tolerance for people who don't follow the faith.Precisely. Religious ideologies (particularly Christianity) are rife with contradictions which can only be waved away by granting higher authority figures exemption from the standards they impose on their underlings. It is nothing more than a fearful worship of power.
Ignorance would definitely be a primary factor when it comes to inflicting religion on the young, but don't underestimate a child's intelligence; most children will not automatically believe nonsense without some sort of prior threat or guilt. Try handing an empty box to a five year old and relentlessly insist that there's a new tablet inside.That's not it. I believe that when it comes to Christianity being one of the largest denominations in the United States it largely has to do with the fact that your average American is largely uneducated and prefers to remain blissfully ignorant of the truth. Few people who claim to be adherents to the faith have completed reading the Bible (I have) or attend church on a regular basis (I do). The prior which I did because I was being indoctrinated in the faith and the latter because I wish to still continue to have a relationship with my mother who is a religious zealot, however has no tolerance for people who don't follow the faith.
To be more precise, science doesn't develop new theories and discard the old, it builds on established theories. Science cannot be used as a 'gaps in our knowledge' excuse for the potentiality of supernatural occurrences, that's pure regression. It's abusive to fill a child's head with fallacious notions like 'anything is possible'.I am more educated in terms of general overall knowledge than most believers who come to defend their faith online and have a more broad attitude choosing not to fall into the pitfall of using the 'science' card having studied biochemistry extensively and understanding that science doesn't contain absolute answers as to how we originated, however is gradually still developing theories on the topic at hand.
Like I said, religion upholds contemporary cultural circumstances as virtuous. These beliefs are a vulnerability toward exploitation, not a safeguard. Conformity vs. Rebellion, which do you think a religious person is more likely to choose?Unlike the common 'feel good' defense that religion is there to fortify moral values and to keep people in check, I am currently living in an incredibly corrupt country where citizens allow themselves to be exploited by big corporations, banks, and other systems choosing to willingly remain apathetic because they don't want to make an effort to change their own conditions and choose to chalk it up to the fall of mankind and the influence of sin rather than actually analyzing how investing in faulty financial devices like derivatives and mortgage back securities continue to play a large part in the defrauding of our system.
Yeah, one of the fundamental distinctions between science and religion is their perception of humanity. Religion requires humans to have started from a place of greatness, but then to have fallen from grace in order to explain present day suffering. Science asserts that we started as a disgusting sludgy mass of perpetually reproducing single-cellular organisms - it has only been uphill from there.Religion is one form of control that is exerted on the poor and ignorant to give them an illusion that there are reasons why they are suffering. Other forms of manipulation involve the saturated growth of America's higher level 'education system' that promises students job security in the future while those that are able to land steady jobs and have consistent careers are tricked into trusting a 401k account and pension fund that is fully out of their own control and left to the hands of the bankers.
After somebody has devoted a significant portion of their life to a religious (or political) collective then people-pleasing conformity becomes an aspect of who they are rather than something they do. It's a very difficult habit to reverse.The recurring trend in all these cases is that when people continue to put faith into other people and other instruments instead of relying on themselves to come to terms with the failures of the world then they will continue to be abused and exploited because they will never adjust their behavior. They will continue to feed the pockets of the people exploiting them which is sad because at the very least the value of capitalism should at least tell us that we should be giving up money to social devices that will actually aid us in our individual progress to attain more capital and not the other way around.
Ideally, atheist families do not teach wishful conclusions as the religious do, they teach their kids how to think so that they're able to reach to the most logical conclusions given any context. Atheism is not comparable to religion, it is a rejection of faith, faith being a pretense of knowledge. The existence of God is not a subjective/preferential matter - somebody can either deny reality (and thus truth) by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity or they can rightfully accept that things which cannot exist do not exist.The same goes for atheist families. Just because a parent decrees "There is no God" does not mean that is the right thing for their child to believe (and yes, I do in fact think that even atheism requires faith to a degree... the religion of non-religion if you will.)
This seems overly absolute, don't you think? Can we truly dismiss the existence of a "higher" power simply because humans defined God poorly?Ideally, atheist families do not teach wishful conclusions as the religious do, they teach their kids how to think so that they're able to reach to the most logical conclusions given any context. Atheism is not comparable to religion, it is a rejection of faith, faith being a pretense of knowledge. The existence of God is not a subjective/preferential matter - somebody can either deny reality (and thus truth) by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity or they can rightfully accept that things which cannot exist do not exist.
Is proclaiming 1 + 1 = 2 'overly absolutist'?This seems overly absolute, don't you think? Can we truly dismiss the existence of a "higher" power simply because humans defined God poorly?
Ambiguity fallacy. In the quoted paragraph Lars never denied the existence of "higher" power. His statements wrt God have been relatively focused on a religion based God and not a build-your-own "God" that you equivocate to being a misunderstood "higher" power.This seems overly absolute, don't you think? Can we truly dismiss the existence of a "higher" power simply because humans defined God poorly?
While you can't force religion on those old enough to think clearly for themselves, children especially are subject to having their entire mindsets influenced by whatever they are within proximity to. The Children of bigots and the openly racist are likely to become so themselves if that is all they are around. Similarly, children exposed to religion and knowing only religion are likely to follow that religion. Is is brainwashing then, if parents expose their children to religion at a young age? Religion and children is an issue best handles by society, where children are exposed to a multitude of different aspects of belief and happiness not revolving around only religion. While I believe parents should be able to expose their children to religion, all other religions as well as a lack of religion and other philosophies should be under equal representation for children.Avoiding the whole religion is right/wrong debate. What are children supposed to be raised by then? If anything, children normally desire to be like their parents until they reach their teen years and think they know everything by then. By then you can't "force" kids to follow the religion, they just live a double life which is even worse though. Expanding on the double life, its more prominent when the parents who are forcing the religion, are just forcing culture instead of the religion itself and do so to not look bad in their religious community. Religion cannot be forced as a primary aspect to religion is submitting yourself to it. No one can force your heart to submit but yourself.
By absolute I am referring to this notion you've described that Atheists cannot be compared to Theists. To me they both revolved around the same thing: Faith. So they're similar in this fashion. The Theist has faith that God exists. The Atheist has faith that God does not exist. If we're to be perfectly correct I suppose you can say that the Atheist does not believe in anything, they either know or don't know, but I find this to be a limiting position, as one should question everything if they are to be the most open minded. I say this because there is no possible way for anyone to "know" if God exists or not, you can only assume based on the observations you've made if one is correct or not. And so if you're going to teach your child anything, it should be that the idea of God is possible, just that today's examples of God may be what you call contradictory.Is proclaiming 1 + 1 = 2 'overly absolutist'?
Coz ya know, man, 1 + 1 could equal anything in some other whacked out dimension that doesn't follow the up-tight rules of our universe, dude. Stop being overly (?) absolutist with these words you're saying... it's cramping my style. Anything is possible, man, just gotta think outside the box, ya know? Find a balance, yin yang and all that.
Explain to me how these windy notions add anything of value to human thought.
If 'God' is a term which cannot be defined then it is meaningless, it doesn't generate some reality-bending loophole which converts meaninglessness into 'the meaning of all things'.
Yeah but he's missing the point, then. I'll agree the Abrahamic God can be interpreted as contradictory and therefore does not exist. But that's not where it would end... the idea of a higher power is what kids often start with, and then parents go from there to define it for them (Well, there's Jesus, blah blah blah). He said "The existence of God is not a subjective/preferential matter - somebody can either deny reality (and thus truth) by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity or they can rightfully accept that things which cannot exist do not exist." And by saying this he's really saying you can either be an idiot or you can be smart. I took issue with this stance, because it's disingenuous and insulting, and a false dichotomy to boot. The true statement would follow: You can either deny reality by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity, or you can leave yourself open to the idea that there is a higher power that we do not fully understand, and therefore cannot define in any traditional sense. Choosing to believe in the latter does not = stupid. It just means you're willing to be open to the possibility. Now if someone goes further as to take actions based on that premise, then THAT is dumb, yes. But then we're getting beyond the initial statement.Ambiguity fallacy. In the quoted paragraph Lars never denied the existence of "higher" power. His statements wrt God have been relatively focused on a religion based God and not a build-your-own "God" that you equivocate to being a misunderstood "higher" power.
Faith is not the same as accepting gaps in our knowledge - faith is not humility.By absolute I am referring to this notion you've described that Atheists cannot be compared to Theists. To me they both revolved around the same thing: Faith. So they're similar in this fashion. The Theist has faith that God exists. The Atheist has faith that God does not exist. If we're to be perfectly correct I suppose you can say that the Atheist does not believe in anything, they either know or don't know, but I find this to be a limiting position, as one should question everything if they are to be the most open minded. I say this because there is no possible way for anyone to "know" if God exists or not, you can only assume based on the observations you've made if one is correct or not. And so if you're going to teach your child anything, it should be that the idea of God is possible, just that today's examples of God may be what you call contradictory.
Please don't insult children, they're quite empirical without the constant bias influence of religious parents. God is not an innate idea, there are no innate ideas.The idea of a higher power is what kids often start with
Are you seriously saying this with a straight face? In a thread about parents forcing religion upon their children, filling their heads with ridiculous, inappropriate and frightful stories posited as historical fact while having them worship a corpse on a stick whose death they are to be blamed for. Don't forget all those hypocritical edicts upheld as objective ethics because the big floaty ghost in the sky said so... better obey otherwise you'll be sent to the eternal naughty-corner where mischievous imps shove flaming rods up your butt and giant demons bite off your head.Not everyone finds it easy to swallow that the structure of the universe from the bonding of atoms to the many stars in the galaxy, is just a big coincidence. Our knowledge only explains how stuff works, not why stuff works. What exactly is faith defining in the nature of the universe? From what I know, faith just puts God at the beginning instead of nothing.
I didn't explicitly state Christianity, those were just familiar examples. All religion is basically the same - a rejection of reality for the sake of social/emotional convenience.You're jumping to conclusions assuming faith automatically means Christianity. Nonetheless, whether God exists or not is not the argument, more people find it easier to believe in God than not that is all.
Oh I know, it's inevitable for a religious parent to impose their beliefs because they don't want their kids to "go to hell" (become rational). i.e. it's inevitable for me to consider them abusive scum-bags.I know there are some abusive parents out there when it comes to faith, but I could say the same thing could happen in an Atheist family when the child wants to believe in God and the parents force him or her to not believe. The parents intend better for their child when trying to "force" their beliefs.
This right here is akin to forcing their children to be like them. In the end, I'm saying majority of the time, parents have good intentions for their children more often than not. Even if the parents are delusional, they still have good intentions in their heart (most of the time at least).If atheist parents notice that their child is being exploited by some external influence, they should do everything in their power to alleviate the problem. Religion is synonymous with exploitation.
Sorry for not being clear enough earlier, I added 'without force or threats against the child'.This right here is akin to forcing their children to be like them. In the end, I'm saying majority of the time, parents have good intentions for their children more often than not. Even if the parents are delusional, they still have good intentions in their heart (most of the time at least).
So I say it like this. Parents have the right to control their kids up to an age where the kids think for themselves. Even then, parents can and should play a strong influence in their children's lives.
Our definitions of 'good parenting' are quite different, there's no point continuing.If my child is making noise in public, I should have a right to force him to be quiet. I'm not protecting him from anything as no one does anything about a crying child, at least not anything to the child.
Practically speaking, parents have to force their children to do things time and time again. Like forcing good manners, good hygiene, proper etiquettes speaking to others. Not every child wants to do that. What is the child being protected from here? From being a despicable person?