[fluff]

Sorry about that, but I wanted to make sure you knew what I was referring to.

What Ohio said, plus we can certainly separate out factors, like the teaching of hatred that are parts of the religion.

It's a tool that is used on the masses, yes. For the masses, it is a reason. There are other tools that are possible and can be just as irrational, but that's no argument to night fight against one that is known to be irrational.

Actually, I can. The commandment is not to murder. Killing for punishment is dealing out god's justice.

Teaching a bastardized form of Christianity does end up making it better in the end, because of our seculaly (and rationally) evolving society. It is done IN SPITE OF religion. The original objection, however, was to the idea that people need a guidebook, and if one were to simply read the Bible and not believe the perverted message that the church now gives, then the guidebook would be teaching people to commit all kinds of heinous things in the name of god.

The percentage of people that do believe in god, maybe. (If you add up the percentages, you actually get less than 50% I believe. 22% chose Creationism and 17% chose ID, correct? Added up that comes to 39%.) Those percentages aside, do you think that over 50% of people NEED the Bible (or some other irrational religious text) in order to keep from running around and killing for no reason? That was the original statement that I objected to.

I'm not exactly sure how. I thought that I had made a point that I was speaking about the religions that we have, which I do think are a bigger force for evil than for good. In the abstract, that statement would not necessarily be true.

Because we rationally note that it is beneficial to society, which in turn helps us personally. We don't need the threat of hell in order to understand the concept of societal benefit.

Ok, I'm done with the line-by-line business...

You cannot separate the influence of religion upon culture it's impossible. If you can extract the influence of religion on English culture you will convince me, until then you're just issuing hot-air.

I also said 50% of people are unable to be rational, I did not refer to the Bible.

The commandment is thou shalt not kill (in the English version) you can go back to Greek/Hebrew/Double-fvcking-Dutch for all I care but as no sane English person reads the bible in those languages it is irrelevant, it says thou shalt not kill, that's what the church teaches. Give it up. I was taught from the bible and there's plenty of teaching, particularly in the NT that is clearly not evil.

I fail to see any real evidence that proves religion is inherently evil, but for the sake of ending this pointless argument I will accept that it is.


Now I want to see that rationality is inherently good; 'for the good of society' just doesn't cut it. You remove religion you leave man, the creator of religion, you think he's suddenly going to get nicer?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Ok, I'm done with the line-by-line business...

I hope you don't mind if I continue to use it, since it is easier for me.

You cannot separate the influence of religion upon culture it's impossible. If you can extract the influence of religion on English culture you will convince me, until then you're just issuing hot-air.

Maybe, maybe not. We can certainly try, and we have fields of study that are devoted to that. We CAN definitely examine the claims and the "morals" that are written in the holy books and judge their worth.

I also said 50% of people are unable to be rational, I did not refer to the Bible.

Do you really mean that 50% are UNABLE to be rational, or simply are not being rational?

The commandment is thou shalt not kill (in the English version) you can go back to Greek/Hebrew/Double-fvcking-Dutch for all I care but as no sane English person reads the bible in those languages it is irrelevant, it says thou shalt not kill, that's what the church teaches. Give it up. I was taught from the bible and there's plenty of teaching, particularly in the NT that is clearly not evil.

Here are the versions that (in English) say not to "murder"
New International
New American Standard
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
English Standard
Contemporary English
New King James
Young's Literal Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's
New Internation - UK

What is it I should give up?

I fail to see any real evidence that proves religion is inherently evil, but for the sake of ending this pointless argument I will accept that it is.

I never said religion itself is inherently evil. I think the religions we have are more evil than good, and I think rationality is preferred to irrationality.

Now I want to see that rationality is inherently good; 'for the good of society' just doesn't cut it. You remove religion you leave man, the creator of religion, you think he's suddenly going to get nicer?

I think that if we teach rationality, then yes, society will be better off. Irrationality is learned (unless science shows otherwise with studies of the "religious gene") and can be compared to other learned behaviors. For instance, racism is a learned behavior. If we teach people to be more tolerant of others, we will see a society that can better handle differences in race, which would benefit society as a whole.

Rationality isn't inherently good and I don't recall saying it is. I think it is preferrable to irrationality, however.

I freely admit that I might be wrong, but I've freely admitted it was my opinion the whole time.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If anyone is still reading this thread, here is an interesting article from the Boston Globe about Daniel Dennett's new book. I think it talks about some of the issues that we've touched on in this thread.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/01/29/supernatural_selection/

 

[fluff]

I hope you don't mind if I continue to use it, since it is easier for me.

It makes it really hard work, can we not just focus on the one area? I already agreed to leave religion out of this to try and concentrate on why rationality is so exciting.

Maybe, maybe not. We can certainly try, and we have fields of study that are devoted to that. We CAN definitely examine the claims and the "morals" that are written in the holy books and judge their worth.

Then illustrate to me how English culture would be without religion, don't just simply tell me that someone else has looked into it.

Do you really mean that 50% are UNABLE to be rational, or simply are not being rational?

How can I tell? If they are not being rational how can I tell if they are simply not trying or are simply incapable?

Here are the versions that (in English) say not to "murder"
New International
New American Standard
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
English Standard
Contemporary English
New King James
Young's Literal Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's
New Internation - UK

How many of those have existed for more than 50 years, how many for more than 100 years

What is it I should give up?

Proving Christianity evil by the translation of one word in relatively recent editions of the bible.

Moreover, given that the death penalty seemed rational 100 years ago, why blame the bible for it, by all your other criteria it would be there anyway.

And once again, as we both believe religon and religious texts were created by man (and educated & intellectual men at that) why is it that they are so irrational? We're talking the word of man.

I never said religion itself is inherently evil. I think the religions we have are more evil than good, and I think rationality is preferred to irrationality.

I think that if we teach rationality, then yes, society will be better off. Irrationality is learned (unless science shows otherwise with studies of the "religious gene") and can be compared to other learned behaviors. For instance, racism is a learned behavior. If we teach people to be more tolerant of others, we will see a society that can better handle differences in race, which would benefit society as a whole.

Rationality isn't inherently good and I don't recall saying it is. I think it is preferrable to irrationality, however.

I freely admit that I might be wrong, but I've freely admitted it was my opinion the whole time.

If irrationality is learned are you trying to imply that rationality is not? I don't believe you are but then why point out that either is, why not accept that all such behaviour is learned.

Where is intolerance taught, where is racism taught? How are you going to tackle them with the teaching of rationality over and above what we already have, isn't that what school and college strive to do?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It makes it really hard work, can we not just focus on the one area? I already agreed to leave religion out of this to try and concentrate on why rationality is so exciting.

Then illustrate to me how English culture would be without religion, don't just simply tell me that someone else has looked into it.

How can I tell? If they are not being rational how can I tell if they are simply not trying or are simply incapable?

How many of those have existed for more than 50 years, how many for more than 100 years

Proving Christianity evil by the translation of one word in relatively recent editions of the bible.

Moreover, given that the death penalty seemed rational 100 years ago, why blame the bible for it, by all your other criteria it would be there anyway.

And once again, as we both believe religon and religious texts were created by man (and educated & intellectual men at that) why is it that they are so irrational? We're talking the word of man.

If irrationality is learned are you trying to imply that rationality is not? I don't believe you are but then why point out that either is, why not accept that all such behaviour is learned.

Where is intolerance taught, where is racism taught? How are you going to tackle them with the teaching of rationality over and above what we already have, isn't that what school and college strive to do?

When I said that I would continue to break up the lines, I didn't mean that you had to as well, but I will keep from doing it as much as I can.

I can't show you how English culture would be w/o religion, but I can make pretty good gueses. By going back and looking at the influence it has had, we can figure out where things would have been different. For instance, in science, it's likely that we could have made technological advances quicker if not for religion standing in the way in many cases.

Now, you admit that irrationality is learned, as is rationality, so how can you say that people are incapable of being rational? Are you saying that some people are incapable of learning it? Also, I wasn't saying anything about combatting racism, I was merely drawing a parallel between learned behaviors.

Please stop arguing the thou shall not kill/murder, because it's getting tedious. Many more English versions have murder rather than kill. Even if it did say kill, do you really think the authors were that stupid, that they would make a commandment that contradicts all other commands from god? Personally, I think they were irrational, but not necessarily stupid, not that stupid anyway. If someone kills someone else, do they say, "Well you violated the commandment not to kill, but we can't violate that commandment either, so off you go, no punishment?" No, of course not. The god that is described in the Bible is barbaric, asks barbaric deeds, and people who actually follow what is written in the Bible would not fit in with our more advanced culture, period.

 

[fluff]

Lots, just above, and I've snipped it for sake of space but kept the quotage for simple flow of discussion - no offence or disingenuous tactics intended.

I’ll agree that much of this is getting tedious, maybe we should continue via PM if we care enough? (Or have enough time.)

My point regarding the translations was that regardless of how many different versions that there may be now (or even historically) what matters is which one has had the most exposure and given that most people quote ‘shall not kill’ your argument is irrelevant. Your opinion is that the God of the bible is barbaric etc, if the perception of most Christians is otherwise then once again your opinion is not the one that has the impact on Christianity-inspired behaviour. It is unreasonable to assume a position of literal interpretation if the majority of Christians do not.

Regarding your comments on the role of religion in society and culture, particularly with regard to scientific progress it can be argued that the Church actually assisted and advanced science. The church was for many centuries the bastion of education and many early scientific discoveries were made by monks, priests and other ordained ministers. Even Darwin had a clerical role. The church was a patron of the arts also so it did not exactly man the barricades against progress. Certainly it is not blemish-free, nor a paragon of virtue but the argument that scientific progress would have happened faster needs a far better case than you have so far constructed.

With regard to learned behaviour, as children are born ignorant clearly all behaviour is learned. Whether the needs that drive that learning are in-built I cannot say but I would expect that some certainly are, such as the need for food and warmth. Given that rational behaviour as you are talking about it as a basis for a healthy society would entail making decisions that may not be in your own best interest short-term but in the best interest of society that requires a great deal more thought and restraint. You only need to look at the way that people act politically and in general to see that many people have not mastered that concept. Lack of religion does not make people rational.

The moral framework of society is an integral part of our culture as is religion. You cannot simply take the morals that you consider good and assign them to a non-religious source and then assign all those you do not like to religion, it is as simplistic, Manichean and flawed as the position of a man like Pat Robertson.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I’ll agree that much of this is getting tedious, maybe we should continue via PM if we care enough? (Or have enough time.)

My point regarding the translations was that regardless of how many different versions that there may be now (or even historically) what matters is which one has had the most exposure and given that most people quote ‘shall not kill’ your argument is irrelevant. Your opinion is that the God of the bible is barbaric etc, if the perception of most Christians is otherwise then once again your opinion is not the one that has the impact on Christianity-inspired behaviour. It is unreasonable to assume a position of literal interpretation if the majority of Christians do not.

Regarding your comments on the role of religion in society and culture, particularly with regard to scientific progress it can be argued that the Church actually assisted and advanced science. The church was for many centuries the bastion of education and many early scientific discoveries were made by monks, priests and other ordained ministers. Even Darwin had a clerical role. The church was a patron of the arts also so it did not exactly man the barricades against progress. Certainly it is not blemish-free, nor a paragon of virtue but the argument that scientific progress would have happened faster needs a far better case than you have so far constructed.

With regard to learned behaviour, as children are born ignorant clearly all behaviour is learned. Whether the needs that drive that learning are in-built I cannot say but I would expect that some certainly are, such as the need for food and warmth. Given that rational behaviour as you are talking about it as a basis for a healthy society would entail making decisions that may not be in your own best interest short-term but in the best interest of society that requires a great deal more thought and restraint. You only need to look at the way that people act politically and in general to see that many people have not mastered that concept. Lack of religion does not make people rational.

The moral framework of society is an integral part of our culture as is religion. You cannot simply take the morals that you consider good and assign them to a non-religious source and then assign all those you do not like to religion, it is as simplistic, Manichean and flawed as the position of a man like Pat Robertson.

If you'd like to continue on PM, that would suit me just fine.

I will say this. The Christianity that you grew up with is a lot different from the Christianity that was around 100 years ago. That version was different from 500 years ago, which in turn was different from 1000 years ago. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, our culture has evolved, and with it we have seen our morals change. What you speak of as "teachings of Christianity" are really the teachings of our ever evolving society/culture. I've been trying to make the distinction that what is being taught now by Christians is not what is truly in the Bible, and if one were to go back and really take their teachings from what is truly in the Bible, then one would be a barbarian in our eyes. The modern Christian teachings do, however, still teach hatred in my opinion through the teachings of original sin for instance. Original sin is an especially hateful concept whereby the Christian is essentially taught that all people are inherently wicked and evil. That is hateful teaching.

As for science, the church might have been a patron, but they also hindered science to a very large degree. I (and again this is just my opinion) don't think that man's thirst for knowledge and discovery would have abated had the church not been there. Without the "goddidit" mantra to fall back on man might very well have been more thirsty, and instead of trying to "scientifically" figure out how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, man could have studied more useful things, without fear of retribution when one's findings contradicted dogma. I can't prove any of this, because I can't replay history, but....

(Edit: For evidence of how uninspiring "goddidit" can be, just look to the ID movement.)

No, lack of religion does not make some rational all of a sudden, but teaching irrationality does make someone irrational (most of the time.) I think that if we taught people rationality we'd find that most people do have the capacity to learn it and understand it.

Finally, I reject the notion that I am being simplistic. I am not simply assigning all immoral attitudes to religion. I'm saying that religion is irrational (which is something you agree with), that the actual teachings of the scriptures (which most Christians don't really follow) are morally reprehensible to me (and to many other people as well, even people who call themselves Christian), and that rationality can be learned by the masses; we don't need to teach them irrationality. I don't think that most Christians are immoral, but I also don't think they follow the book that they say they put so much stock in. I think they are really following the evolved morals of our culture and society and attributing it to the wrong source (the Bible.)

 

[fluff]

C'mon, ID is a relatively recent phenomenon, hardly indicative of the position of the church for 2000 years. Aside of your opinion you still have not made a case that we would be further developed had religion not existed.

Putting that aside what is that makes you think people can be taught to be rational? The very start of this thread was an alarming statistic about how few people in the UK believed evolution was correct and evolution is the only theory taught in science in the UK and that's been the case for many years now. There will be many other equally or perhaps more stunning examples of people's ignorance of basic ideas needed to demonstrate rationality, if that is the case now, why should it ever change? People are either not that smart or simply can't be bothered. How else do some of our governments get away with some of the things that they do?

There was a thread on here recently about how people refuse to credit information that they do not agree with, how do you intend to get around that one? People do not want to be rational.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

C'mon, ID is a relatively recent phenomenon, hardly indicative of the position of the church for 2000 years. Aside of your opinion you still have not made a case that we would be further developed had religion not existed.

Putting that aside what is that makes you think people can be taught to be rational? The very start of this thread was an alarming statistic about how few people in the UK believed evolution was correct and evolution is the only theory taught in science in the UK and that's been the case for many years now. There will be many other equally or perhaps more stunning examples of people's ignorance of basic ideas needed to demonstrate rationality, if that is the case now, why should it ever change? People are either not that smart or simply can't be bothered. How else do some of our governments get away with some of the things that they do?

There was a thread on here recently about how people refuse to credit information that they do not agree with, how do you intend to get around that one? People do not want to be rational.

I know ID is recent (although they say it comes from Aristotle) and I was simply using it as an example of how inane "goddidit" is. My case is completely based on a hypothetical (that science is married to rational thought and irrational teachings are antithetical to that) and I've admitted as much. I'm not trying to "prove" that we would be further developed because it is impossible to prove. Please don't make me repeat that again, because my having to say that it is my opinion for the umpteen millionth time is also tedious. I've said it's my opinion and I've stated why it is my opinion, but since neither of us can go back and rewrite history so that it plays out differently all we ever will have on the matter is opinion.

The statistic is alarming, but not wholly unexpected because we teach people irrationality from a very early age. We teach kids about god, the tooth fairy, easter bunny, etc. Why are we surprised when they act irrationally later or don't learn rational thought? That doesn't mean that people are incapable of it or need it.

The recent thread could be contradictory to my opinion, and if it turns out that is the case, I will change my opinion, because it doesn't make sense to me to hold to something that has been proven false. But, that's not what has happened. That study didn't prove that people can not or do not want to be rational (especially not the latter). I also wonder about the methodology of the study. They should pick candidates that people don't easily recognize and then test again to see if the same results appear. That aside, do you think it has anything to do with the fact that people are taught irrationality from a very young age? The behavior that the respondents displayed in that study was a mirror image of those that cling to Creationism instead of evolution.

 

[fluff]

Shi-it bro, it's all opinion...

From what I see of human behaviour I have precious little hope that we can all be rational. That it is so easy to whip up a mob from what would seem normal people is frightening, people are sheep. How many times have you seen people do things that they would normally decry or shy away from simply because they are in a group (herd).

I think it's less to do with the tooth fairy and santa claus than simple human nature.

Why we teach kids about Santa is quite interesting when you think about in this context. Why do you think we do it?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I have little hope of it too, if we keep teaching and holding to our irrationalities. Unfortunately, we won't know until we stop doing it whether we can indeed be rational creatures. I certainly hope that it isn't simply human nature. But, certainly teaching rationality gives more hope than teaching irrationality one would think.

As for Santa, I don't know. I had an older brother, who told me all about the real story, so I never really got roped into the myth. If I had to guess, I would say that it is due to tradition more than anything else.

 

[fluff]

I have little hope of it too, if we keep teaching and holding to our irrationalities. Unfortunately, we won't know until we stop doing it whether we can indeed be rational creatures. I certainly hope that it isn't simply human nature. But, certainly teaching rationality gives more hope than teaching irrationality one would think.

As for Santa, I don't know. I had an older brother, who told me all about the real story, so I never really got roped into the myth. If I had to guess, I would say that it is due to tradition more than anything else.

Do you have kids yourself?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No, I don't.

 

[fluff]

No, I don't.

If you do you may find that they enjoy the myth of Santa Claus. It allows them to believe in magic and to be consistent with their peers. I do not have it in my heart to disabuse them of the notion, especially as I cannot that it does any real harm. (Though it can be a bit galling to hear a mythical, alcoholic, animal-abusing fat bloke given all of the credit for the presents you've paid for, shopped for and wrapped at some godforsaken hour of the night..

A child that is made to be rational at all times will be a lonely child.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Maybe, but certainly one can start early in teaching the differences. Reading Harry Potter stories isn't necessarily bad, but the child can also learn to distinguish between that which is real and not real.

 

[fluff]

Maybe, but certainly one can start early in teaching the differences. Reading Harry Potter stories isn't necessarily bad, but the child can also learn to distinguish between that which is real and not real.

They're surprisingly good at that. Many know that Santa and (especially) the Tooth Fairy don't exist but it is useful to pretend to believe. Play and pretend stimulate a child's creativity.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

They're surprisingly good at that. Many know that Santa and (especially) the Tooth Fairy don't exist but it is useful to pretend to believe. Play and pretend stimulate a child's creativity.

So, if children are well able to distinguish the difference, why do you think that it would be so hard to get adults to do the same?

Question, and you don't have to answer if it is too personal: are you teaching them that god exists? What do you think is the fundamental difference between Santa Claus and god?

 

[fluff]

So, if children are well able to distinguish the difference, why do you think that it would be so hard to get adults to do the same?

Question, and you don't have to answer if it is too personal: are you teaching them that god exists? What do you think is the fundamental difference between Santa Claus and god?

I dunno, why do so many people spend 5-6 hours a week watching soap-operas? I think people really don't want to think, maybe it depresses them?

As for my kids, I am actually going to try and leave them to make up their own mind about god. If they ask for my opinion I will tell them the things that I think they need to consider about the origins of life and the religious texts that I have studied. I hope to teach them to think for themselves (I just don't think many other people have the same view).

What do you consider the primary function of education btw (both in theory and current actual practice)?

There are many differences between God and Santa, the red suit, the hours and hardly anyone really believes God exists anymore.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I dunno, why do so many people spend 5-6 hours a week watching soap-operas? I think people really don't want to think, maybe it depresses them?

As for my kids, I am actually going to try and leave them to make up their own mind about god. If they ask for my opinion I will tell them the things that I think they need to consider about the origins of life and the religious texts that I have studied. I hope to teach them to think for themselves (I just don't think many other people have the same view).

What do you consider the primary function of education btw (both in theory and current actual practice)?

That sounds like a sensible way to raise your kids. Knowledge is a powerful tool as is critical thinking. Speaking of critical thinking, the primary function of education is probably just that.

There are many differences between God and Santa, the red suit, the hours and hardly anyone really believes God exists anymore.

Sorry to split this one out, but I couldn't resist.

1. I wish it were true that hardly anyone believes god exists anymore.
2. I think the big difference is really trivial. God is a belief, while Santa is believed to be a myth. I really don't understand why people make a distinction between the two in terms of how mythological they are, but part of it has to do with the inaccurate facts that get thrown around so much. How many people think that Jesus's life was well documented and that there's no doubt that he was real and that many witnesses saw all these miracles and that they were in fact miracles? If I were raising kids, I would certainly point out the real facts, and not the made up ones that usually get paraded around.

 

[fluff]

Speaking of critical thinking, the primary function of education is probably just that.

Should be that. However, I think that a great deal of education is simply getting people to conform and exist in the society that surrounds. Accepting current culture, obeying laws and being productive (i.e. worker ants). Critical thinking comes a fair way down the list.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Should be that. However, I think that a great deal of education is simply getting people to conform and exist in the society that surrounds. Accepting current culture, obeying laws and being productive (i.e. worker ants). Critical thinking comes a fair way down the list.

Well, that would be part of teaching people rationality (since I think it goes hand in hand with critical thinking). Of course, we can't simply rely on the schools to do all the work for us. Parents have to chip in, society needs to change. Perhaps it is changing. Certainly things are more secular than they used to be just a couple decades ago. Of course, the poll numbers aren't changing, which is puzzling to me.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

fluff, you might find this interesting, and it seems to be similar to what we've been talking about...

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002818.html#002818