MellowDem
MellowDem's JournalSigh...
No, I didn't say I could read Galieo's mind, I said my opinion, which is the most one can do for historical figures. Saying he was a devout Catholic as fact is the assumption. Obviously, if he had been devout, he wouldn't have questioned the church despite reality being against it : )
The very definition of religion makes it a choice. No doubt some identify strongly with beliefs, political or otherwise, but its a choice.
I see modern theists do what the Mormons did day in and day out. That is, when part of your religion becomes inconvenient, explain it away with terrible apologetics and logic. That's all the "allegorical" arguments are. It's the height of intellectual fraud. There isn't a completely made up story a person couldn't constantly redefine and reinterpret to mean whatever they want it to mean. I don't believe that Mormons suddenly found out polygamy was bad and black people ok just as these positions were becoming untenable. It's so obviously disingenuous, and the same thing is happening now with gay marriage.
I understand completely that anyone can make themselves believe what they want to, I'm not arguing against that. I'm criticizing the grounds on which these beliefs rest, and the methods used to get to them.
I never said Galileo wasn't a devout Catholic...
though honestly, I tend to doubt it, considering it was wasn't a good idea not to be. Who knows though, it was irrelevant to my point that religion impedes progress when reality doesn't match religious dogma.
Thank goodness we don't have as many theocracies, but that doesn't stop churches from putting their weight behind policies in democracies and slowing down progress. Stem cell research, Proposition 8, abortion rights, etc. etc.
I can't name a theocracy that isn't pretty darn repressive. Which is to say, humans can be good or bad without it, but religion, as a way of thinking, brings nothing good to the table and only the rather large negative of a system of believing in things without questioning them.
Jefferson must have thought religions were not very believable to be a deist and write out all the miracles of the Bible, basically all the superstition. I don't doubt he understood that the concept of religion was a serious thing to address because it had so much power still at his time, but the system of belief itself was irrational.
Generalizations about belief systems and those who subscribe to those belief systems are nothing like generalizing GLBT people. Being GLBT isn't a choice. Religion, like politics, is a choice. I generalize about political ideologies all the time, as well as those who identify with them. A belief system is just another idea, one open to criticsm, as well as the people who voluntarily choose to hold them. I don't think any of my generalizations are beyond the pale. That is, they're used in a useful way to be able to talk about broad ideas and concepts, not to attack or disparage people. Some may take offense, but it's not the intent, it's just criticsm. I'm sure Republicans take offense at my criticism of them and their ideas.
They're using religious beliefs to justify tyranny....
And their religious texts advocate it in many ways.
Religion impedes progress, as it has throughout history, when reality contradicts religious dogma. The sun revolving around the Earth and the imprisonment of Galileo being one obvious example. Or denying GLBT rights primarily because of what the Bible says.
The countries where the least subscribe to theism, and even those that do don't know or care about the religions they say they subscribe to, and people rarely go to church, much less vote based on what the Bible says. Those don't take religion seriously.
Jefferson took religion so seriously he made a Bible without all the miracles in it. In other words, quite a few thought it was silly superstition. Can't imagine a present day politician doing that.
It's impossible for it to have been a fully independent decision for you....
Or anyone else indoctrinated as a child, and your writing shows it. Being disgusted with a particular denomination doesn't mean a person hasn't taken pieces of it to heart, like the belief in a god in the first place. You say you identified as Lutheran, which means that you still took some of the huge presumptions of Catholicism with you to the next denomination. When you say you began to feel drawn to god "again", that was only possible because of your previous indoctrination. For you to even have a concept of the Christian god, much less a belief that god existed, was part and parcel of your upbringing.
That is to say more basically, if you had been raised with no indoctrination of any sort in a society that was not culturally Christian, chances are close to nil that you would be a Christian of any brand today, and we see that in statistics, which shows how little of an independent decision this stuff can be. Your choice of denomination seems to have much more thought and independence (relatively) behind it than most others, but that just makes you an exception to the rule on the details of religion.
I think many people do what you do and pick and choose what specifics they agree with from the grand presumption of a god, but on that question, few aren't influenced from a young age in that basic assumption. I don't believe most go a further step and find the religion that best fits their belief, because it's inconvenient, and that makes you more honest than most.
Most people who are "unaffiliated" from the surveys I've seen still believe in god, just not organized religion, and are quite capable of indoctrinating their children in that basic premise. That is to say, most are theists of some sort. And unsurprisingly, some eventually join organized theistic churches.
I'm currently an atheist. Yet I was indoctrinated from a child in Christianity. Overcoming indoctrination doesn't mean a person wasn't indoctrinated, and many people only overcome the most inconvenient parts, or ignore them (sex before marriage being one). They apply the most scrutiny to ideas they don't like and try to ignore scrutinizing ideas they do like, I know I did.
Any belief in God I may for some reason take up in the future will always be colored by my childhood indoctrination to some degree.
Regardless of all that, would you indoctrinate your children in your beliefs? Would you tell them, as a fact, that god exists? And in spite of what you think of your own experience, do you believe most people come to their religious beliefs entirely independent of childhood indoctrination? (And the cultural/family/social pressure that accompanies the indoctrination). From the statistics, I find that to be an impossible conclusion.
Where's the arrow view?
I never said there aren't other irrational belief systems out there that can block progress, you're arguing against a straw man.
Religion is a huge hurdle to societal advancement...
It will keep these countries in terrible condition for a while. They'll have to get to a point where they don't take religion seriously like in the West. They need an enlightenment of sorts. It's a good thing the Constitution was written by rather irreligious deists, some of whom thought the Bible was just silly. Made things a lot easier on us, and even then we still are faced with obstruction by the fundamentalists at every turn.
No
They all still believe in the rather immense presumptions of god. They're all flavors of the same indoctrination. It's glaringly obvious from the facts that childhood indoctrination is by far the main way religion perpetuates around the world. I've shown proof it is. Your responses haven't addressed this point.
Do you honestly believe most people choose religions with no influence of childhood indoctrination? Do you want to explain how telling a child the god you believe in is real is not childhood indoctrination? I'd like to see you address relevant points.
A very good man should be recognized for being a good man....
Fraud/scam about beyond the grave miracles performed by the man shouldn't be required for recognition, and is an abuse of that person's memory in order to further a mythology. It's a despicable practice.
Big differences don't exist....
Between Christian denominations to the point where choosing a new one is good proof childhood indoctrination has little to no effect. The really big presumptions that matter, that there is a God, that faith is a good way to approach beliefs, that the Bible is the word of God, are shared by nearly all denominations. When a parent indoctrinate a child in these core presumptions, the indoctrination will color all approaches to religion.
To say that a child indoctrinated in these core beliefs under the banner of Christianity and then switches denominations or even religions is proof that the indoctrination had no impact on their decisions about religion is laughable. It's insulting as well. And yes, it's intellectually dishonest.
I have provided statistics backing up what I've a said. I will continue to accurately describe what religion is, I really don't care what you think is trite, it fits the definitions of the words, and you have provided no points that it doesn't. If you don't believe it's childhood indoctrination, intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance, you'll have to say why.
If all children were educated in the various world religions, NOT indoctrinated, there is no way the numbers I provided would look the way they do. It's not ethical IMHO to tell a child that there is a god, much less a specific one, much less with a text detailing god's nature, as fact, and that is the main reason religion is still around.
No rational or moral belief system relies primarily on childhood indoctrination to continue, much less faith based belief.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2008, 05:59 PMNumber of posts: 5,018
