Topic: Back Again and Here to Stay (Read 2676 times)

End Bringer · « **Reply #20 on:** May 04, 2009, 02:43:38 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on May 04, 2009, 10:43:03 AM

I think that many, if not most, theists believe that the evidence for God's existence makes him a plausible being. In most cases, the argument from design seems to be a strong motivation for belief, and that is why discussions about evolution turn out to be significant. It is not for me to determine how people raise their children, but I think it worse for all of us if children are taught incorrect things about the world. After all, they are our future, and we owe it to them to give them the best tools to understand their nature and their environment. So I would prefer that people not bring up children to believe the things you mentioned. I also believe that children not brought up to believe them are better equipped to cope with reality. Religion is a coping method, but it is not necessarily the best one.

So while saying it's not your place to determine how people raise their children, you've determined that it's wrong for parents to teach their children the things mentioned (question begging all the way to the market). Noooooo contradiction there.

I am curious by what you mean when you say "cope with reality" however. Seeing how you can't deny that people of the Christian faith, or members of any religion for that matter, have existed for thousands of years to this day and have generally lives just as long and full as atheists, it seems "reality" hasn't impeded religious people an iota. So you either need to elaborate or simply admit this is hot aired rhetoric (if not atheistic propaganda).

Quote

As long as I can keep them growing, I don't care what color they come in.

Now I have the sudden earge to find you and dye your hair pink.

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #21 on:** May 04, 2009, 05:29:40 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on May 04, 2009, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: Copernicus on May 04, 2009, 10:43:03 AM
I think that many, if not most, theists believe that the evidence for God's existence makes him a plausible being. In most cases, the argument from design seems to be a strong motivation for belief, and that is why discussions about evolution turn out to be significant. It is not for me to determine how people raise their children, but I think it worse for all of us if children are taught incorrect things about the world. After all, they are our future, and we owe it to them to give them the best tools to understand their nature and their environment. So I would prefer that people not bring up children to believe the things you mentioned. I also believe that children not brought up to believe them are better equipped to cope with reality. Religion is a coping method, but it is not necessarily the best one.

So while saying it's not your place to determine how people raise their children, you've determined that it's wrong for parents to teach their children the things mentioned (question begging all the way to the market). Noooooo contradiction there.

I am curious by what you mean when you say "cope with reality" however. Seeing how you can't deny that people of the Christian faith, or members of any religion for that matter, have existed for thousands of years to this day and have generally lives just as long and full as atheists, it seems "reality" hasn't impeded religious people an iota. So you either need to elaborate or simply admit this is hot aired rhetoric (if not atheistic propaganda).

I can't really say I see any inherent contradictions in Cop's stance here. We all look at children being raised into opposing worldviews and shake our heads in dismay at the image--would you say you don't have similar feelings about children born to atheist parents or, for a more extreme example, children born into families of extreme racists and such?

Acknowledging that we don't have a right to go around telling people how to raise their kids isn't the same as acknowledging that we don't have a right to, say, facepalm at the parents who let their kids scream on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND *ON!!!* in the supermarket without saying a thing to them. Acknowledging other people's right to be what we consider stupid is not acknowledging any kind of obligation not to consider it stupid.

End Bringer · « **Reply #22 on:** May 04, 2009, 05:48:18 PM »

Quote from: Solaris Paradox on May 04, 2009, 05:29:40 PM

I can't really say I see any inherent contradictions in Cop's stance here. We all look at children being raised into opposing worldviews and shake our heads in dismay at the image--would you say you don't have similar feelings about children born to atheist parents or, for a more extreme example, children born into families of extreme racists and such?

If I did, I wouldn't say 'It's not my place to judge.' then turn around and judge almost in the same breath. He thinks it's wrong to teach children certain things and thinks they're being "handicapped" (Am eagerly waiting to hear what this means.) somehow. Ergo he's made a determination, whether he acknowledges it or not. Personally I think this is simply the same line we hear from Dawkins about how some teachings are "child abuse" and is simply censured to either be more politically correct or perhaps with some people (not Cop.) intentionally deceptive.

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #23 on:** May 04, 2009, 06:12:49 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on May 04, 2009, 05:48:18 PM

If I did, I wouldn't say 'It's not my place to judge.' then turn around and judge almost in the same breath.

I love when it all comes down to semantics, because that usually means I get to pwn someone.

He said, and I quote:

Quote from: Copernicus

It is not for me to determine how people raise their children

...Which says nothing about stating his opinions freely, at all.

Quote

He thinks it's wrong to teach children certain things and thinks they're being "handicapped" (Am eagerly waiting to hear what this means.) somehow. Ergo he's made a determination, whether he acknowledges it or not.

Is he going out and telling people what they can and can't do? Is he writing laws? No, no he is not. He's just stating his opinion on the views being taught and their effect on the children learning them. Unless he's ragging on you or someone else about how to raise their own kids, I don't see a problem with stating his opinion on the views being taught or their effect on the kids.

End Bringer · « **Reply #24 on:** May 04, 2009, 06:27:14 PM »

Quote from: Solaris Paradox on May 04, 2009, 06:12:49 PM

He said, and I quote:

Quote from: Copernicus
It is not for me to determine how people raise their children

...Which says nothing about stating his opinions freely, at all.

...

No. THAT doesn't. However when you see this: So I would prefer that people not bring up children to believe the things you mentioned. I also believe that children not brought up to believe them are better equipped to cope with reality. You can see where he determines how people raise their children.

Quote

Is he going out and telling people what they can and can't do? Is he writing laws? No, no he is not. He's just stating his opinion on the views being taught and their effect on the children learning them. Unless he's ragging on you or someone else about how to raise their own kids, I don't see a problem with stating his opinion on the views being taught or their effect on the kids.

Don't recall ever saying he's "writing laws", though that is the inevitable outcome eventually. Nor did I take issue with him having an opinion. I take issue with his contradicting approach. So let me revise my previous statement:

He thinks it's wrong to teach children certain things and thinks they're being "handicapped" (Am eagerly waiting to hear what this means.) somehow. Ergo he's made a determination, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #25 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:20:58 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on May 04, 2009, 06:27:14 PM

No. THAT doesn't. However when you see this: So I would prefer that people not bring up children to believe the things you mentioned. I also believe that children not brought up to believe them are better equipped to cope with reality. You can see where he determines how people raise their children.

Actually, that was just the part where he stated his opinion freely.

Quote

Don't recall ever saying he's "writing laws", though that is the inevitable outcome eventually.

Because he said what he thought, inevitably his thoughts will become law? Wow, that sounds like you think Cop is some kind of god or something.

Quote

Nor did I take issue with him having an opinion.

Apparently just with him expressing said opinion.

Quote

I take issue with his contradicting approach. So let me revise my previous statement:

He thinks it's wrong to teach children certain things and thinks they're being "handicapped" (Am eagerly waiting to hear what this means.) somehow. Ergo he's made a determination, whether you acknowledge it or not.

I took the "it's not for me to determine how people raise their children" part only for what it was--that it wasn't for him to decide for other people. He isn't deciding anything for anyone but himself. He's just saying what he thinks of what other people are doing, which doesn't do anything at all to keep them from continuing to do it until the cows come home.

Can you honestly think of a way he could have worded this opinion that wouldn't have invoked your bogus ZOMG CONTRADICTIONS! objection?

End Bringer · « **Reply #26 on:** May 05, 2009, 04:49:01 AM »

Quote from: Solaris Paradox on May 04, 2009, 09:20:58 PM

Actually, that was just the part where he stated his opinion freely.

I know. That's why he contradicts himself.

Quote

Because he said what he thought, inevitably his thoughts will become law? Wow, that sounds like you think Cop is some kind of god or something.

No, it's the acknowledgement that ideas effect our thinking and our actions. And as the idea that children who are religiously taught are being "handicapped" gains mor favor with more people it inevitably will lead to the action of trying to have it removed "for their own good". And usually the easiest process for secularists and minorities to impose their will on others in this country is to use the judicial system to have the government enter our homes.

Quote

I took the "it's not for me to determine how people raise their children" part only for what it was--that it wasn't for him to decide for other people. He isn't deciding anything for anyone but himself. He's just saying what he thinks of what other people are doing, which doesn't do anything at all to keep them from continuing to do it until the cows come home.

Which is indeed determining how people should raise their children despite saying it's not his place, no matter how you deny it. Frankly this whole issue is over as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

Can you honestly think of a way he could have worded this opinion that wouldn't have invoked your bogus ZOMG CONTRADICTIONS! objection?

Sure. He shouldn't have said it's not his place to have an opinion first. That way he'd have been honest and consistent.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #27 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:54:07 AM »

Hi Cop,

Could you reconcile these two statements:

"In most cases, the argument from design seems to be a strong motivation for belief, and that is why discussions about evolution turn out to be significant."

with

"Religion is a coping method,"

I wonder how well you can believe both statements. I am also interested to know if you believe design is off the table that atheism as well is a 'coping mechanism.' Or are 'coping mechanisms' for religionists, while atheists have no use for them.

"So I would prefer that people not bring up children to believe the things you mentioned."

Do you think teaching children about hell amounts to child abuse?

More directly, you said that it is not your place to determine such things. Do you think it is anyone's place apart from the parents? Like, say, government officials?

"I also believe that children not brought up to believe them are better equipped to cope with reality."

I have no particular objection to this, but of course I believe otherwise- that what I believe is actually reality, and so for children to know about them is to better equip them. And since there is much dispute about just what reality consists of, it seems self-evident to me that the proper course is to leave the matter in the hands of parents. You?

"As long as I can keep them growing, I don't care what color they come in."

Great attitude. :)

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #28 on:** May 06, 2009, 12:26:25 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on May 05, 2009, 04:49:01 AM

Quote from: Solaris Paradox on May 04, 2009, 09:20:58 PM
Actually, that was just the part where he stated his opinion freely.

I know. That's why he contradicts himself.

He contradicts himself because...

Quote

No, it's the acknowledgement that ideas effect our thinking and our actions. And as the idea that children who are religiously taught are being "handicapped" gains mor favor with more people it inevitably will lead to the action of trying to have it removed "for their own good". And usually the easiest process for secularists and minorities to impose their will on others in this country is to use the judicial system to have the government enter our homes.

...you think other people will act on it.

What does that have to do with *him*?

Quote

Which is indeed determining how people should

He never said "should," just "how." It's not for him to determine how they do it, but he has opinions on how they should. There is not contradiction but the one you're reading into it, E.B.

Quote

Sure. He shouldn't have said it's not his place to have an opinion first. That way he'd have been honest and consistent.

He didn't say it's not his place to have an opinion, he said it's not his place to boss people around. There's a difference.

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #29 on:** May 06, 2009, 12:31:28 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on May 05, 2009, 07:54:07 AM

Hi Cop,

Could you reconcile these two statements:

"In most cases, the argument from design seems to be a strong motivation for belief, and that is why discussions about evolution turn out to be significant."

with

"Religion is a coping method,"

I wonder how well you can believe both statements. I am also interested to know if you believe design is off the table that atheism as well is a 'coping mechanism.' Or are 'coping mechanisms' for religionists, while atheists have no use for them.

With all due respect, Johnny, a belief that asserts that the universe is a cold, meaningless place and that human life has no inherent worth or purpose isn't exactly a prime candidate for the role of "coping method." People who see religion as coping methods focus on the way they seem to be shoehorned "answers" for the "big questions" like "Why are we here?" and "How did the world come to be?" (two questions that I find almost laughably pointless considering how many people obsess over them).

Quote

"So I would prefer that people not bring up children to believe the things you mentioned."

Do you think teaching children about hell amounts to child abuse?

He seems to see it as a mental handicap because he thinks they're being indoctrinated into a lie that denies a lot of what he considers truth.

Can you say you wouldn't feel the same about kids born and raised into evolutionist-atheistic families?

Quote

More directly, you said that it is not your place to determine such things. Do you think it is anyone's place apart from the parents? Like, say, government officials?

Incidentally, how much say does the government have on the matter?

Quote

"I also believe that children not brought up to believe them are better equipped to cope with reality."

I have no particular objection to this, but of course I believe otherwise- that what I believe is actually reality, and so for children to know about them is to better equip them. And since there is much dispute about just what reality consists of, it seems self-evident to me that the proper course is to leave the matter in the hands of parents. You?

I believe that was the purpose of the "not my place" thing.

End Bringer · « **Reply #30 on:** May 06, 2009, 12:36:04 AM »

Quote from: Solaris Paradox on May 06, 2009, 12:26:25 AM

Quote
Which is indeed determining how people should

He never said "should," just "how." It's not for him to determine how they do it, but he has opinions on how they should. There is not contradiction but the one you're reading into it, E.B.

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #31 on:** May 06, 2009, 02:33:33 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on May 06, 2009, 12:36:04 AM

Quote from: Solaris Paradox on May 06, 2009, 12:26:25 AM
Quote
Which is indeed determining how people should

He never said "should," just "how." It's not for him to determine how they do it, but he has opinions on how they should. There is not contradiction but the one you're reading into it, E.B.

Your lack of subtlety amuses me.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #32 on:** May 06, 2009, 08:05:59 AM »

"With all due respect, Johnny, a belief that asserts that the universe is a cold, meaningless place and that human life has no inherent worth or purpose isn't exactly a prime candidate for the role of "coping method.""

Well heck, now it looks like you are the one aligning yourself with my description originally applied to Copernicus. Sound familiar:

Quote

Now that you have settled on atheism, well now of course you are another example of those valiant free thinkers who rose above their conditioning to deal with reality, harsh as it is. As you can see by such an approach, there is no such thing as a Christian theist who impartially and honestly is one based on their own objective assessment of the evidence.

Initially you said you wouldn't go that far. Are you going that far now?

How would you distance yourself from this characterization of the theism/atheism debate if in fact you seem to accept it as true?

"People who see religion as coping methods"

Calling something a 'coping mechanism' in my mind is saying that it is a artificial construct designed to help someone come to grips with unpleasant facts- the construct itself need not be grounded in facts.

To portray the argument in these terms at all is to dismiss the possibility that the views actually do represent the real facts on the ground. In my book, it isn't a 'coping mechanism' if in fact you are the one grounded in reality. At any rate, I find it very interesting that atheists can get away with dismissing religion as a 'coping mechanism' but atheism is immune from the same consideration. It smacks of a certain intellectual snobbery.

Besides, I can contrast your description: "the universe is a cold, meaningless place" with some of the descriptions believed by religionists: "the universe is a cold meaningless place where great evil occurs and God, whom you believe exists, seems deliberately aloof."

Most honest Christian theists I know believe that characterization. Tell me how that is a 'coping mechanism.' It is believing something even harder than what the atheists believe. How is 'the universe is hostile' harsher than 'the universe is hostile and there is a God who could resolve it in a wink but doesn't' ?

"He seems to see it as a mental handicap because he thinks they're being indoctrinated into a lie that denies a lot of what he considers truth."

Right.

"Can you say you wouldn't feel the same about kids born and raised into evolutionist-atheistic families?"

Sure. But you don't see me demanding that the government intervenes to ensure that kids are raised in accordance to reality the way I perceive it.

"Incidentally, how much say does the government have on the matter?"

In this country, more and more. That's going to change. In Europe it is quite a different matter. England is making great strides to insert itself increasingly in the upbringing of children. In Germany, homeschooling parents were thrown in jail and they almost lost their kids. In the end, they had to flee the country.

If you don't want to see what is happening in Europe happen here the time to do something about it is now.

Although, we might find in the next 4-8 years that even now is too late.

"I believe that was the purpose of the "not my place" thing."

Right. But what I wanted to know specifically if he thinks its someone else's place. He doesn't want the job himself, but perhaps he thinks someone should be doing it.

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #33 on:** May 07, 2009, 01:11:04 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on May 06, 2009, 08:05:59 AM

Well heck, now it looks like you are the one aligning yourself with my description originally applied to Copernicus. Sound familiar:

Quote
Now that you have settled on atheism, well now of course you are another example of those valiant free thinkers who rose above their conditioning to deal with reality, harsh as it is. As you can see by such an approach, there is no such thing as a Christian theist who impartially and honestly is one based on their own objective assessment of the evidence.

Initially you said you wouldn't go that far. Are you going that far now?

I'm just saying that atheism doesn't fit the "coping method" category all that well. Would you disagree?

Quote

How would you distance yourself from this characterization of the theism/atheism debate if in fact you seem to accept it as true?

Some accept God because they need him to cope. Others accept him because they think it's logically correct. It's an individual thing. I don't like to generalize.

Quote

"People who see religion as coping methods"

Calling something a 'coping mechanism' in my mind is saying that it is a artificial construct designed to help someone come to grips with unpleasant facts- the construct itself need not be grounded in facts.

To portray the argument in these terms at all is to dismiss the possibility that the views actually do represent the real facts on the ground.

Not necessarily. You do know that people can be right for the wrong reasons, don't you?

Quote

In my book, it isn't a 'coping mechanism' if in fact you are the one grounded in reality.

In my book, it isn't a "coping mechanism" if the believer's reasons for believing are logical rather than emotional.

Quote

At any rate, I find it very interesting that atheists can get away with dismissing religion as a 'coping mechanism' but atheism is immune from the same consideration. It smacks of a certain intellectual snobbery.

The belief just doesn't seem to do much for "coping," I find. Accepting atheism, for me, was essentially accepting chaos. It wasn't easy accepting, for example, that people who cause nothing but pain don't always get what they deserve for it, in life or death; or that ultimately my own life is just a another meaningless happening in an infinite ocean of meaningless happenings.

Quote

Besides, I can contrast your description: "the universe is a cold, meaningless place" with some of the descriptions believed by religionists: "the universe is a cold meaningless place where great evil occurs and God, whom you believe exists, seems deliberately aloof."

But loving and caring and ultimately the meaning of life, yes? Rewarding the faithful and punishing the wicked and all that. More adequate for "coping" than atheism, by my reckoning.

Quote

Most honest Christian theists I know believe that characterization. Tell me how that is a 'coping mechanism.' It is believing something even harder than what the atheists believe. How is 'the universe is hostile' harsher than 'the universe is hostile and there is a God who could resolve it in a wink but doesn't' ?

That's interesting, you see, because most of the Christians I meet in real life wouldn't describe it that way. It's all about love and grace and "Can you explain how we got here? Can you tell me the meaning of life? Nope, didn't think so." That last one in particular smacks of coping-method...

Quote

"He seems to see it as a mental handicap because he thinks they're being indoctrinated into a lie that denies a lot of what he considers truth."

Right.

"Can you say you wouldn't feel the same about kids born and raised into evolutionist-atheistic families?"

Sure. But you don't see me demanding that the government intervenes to ensure that kids are raised in accordance to reality the way I perceive it.

When did Copernicus demand that the government intervene?

Quote

"Incidentally, how much say does the government have on the matter?"

In this country, more and more. That's going to change. In Europe it is quite a different matter. England is making great strides to insert itself increasingly in the upbringing of children. In Germany, homeschooling parents were thrown in jail and they almost lost their kids. In the end, they had to flee the country.

What kind of fail is that?!

Quote

"I believe that was the purpose of the "not my place" thing."

Right. But what I wanted to know specifically if he thinks its someone else's place. He doesn't want the job himself, but perhaps he thinks someone should be doing it.

Hm. Well, let's see what his answer is, then.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #34 on:** May 07, 2009, 02:45:35 PM »

"I'm just saying that atheism doesn't fit the "coping method" category all that well. Would you disagree?"

I do disagree. I'll expound on reasons below.

"In my book, it isn't a "coping mechanism" if the believer's reasons for believing are logical rather than emotional."

Well, I'd say the same thing about atheists. That's one of the things I'm getting at. The idea that only among religionists do you find a mix of logic and emotion and coping mechanisms etc insinuates that atheists operate on nothing more than cold hard facts and Spock-like reasoning. I can't think of a single atheist that achieves that. After all, Spock was a vulcan. The rest of us are human- and that includes atheists. :)

"It wasn't easy accepting, for example, that people who cause nothing but pain don't always get what they deserve for it, in life or death;"

Ever hear of the book of Job? I think you'll find the mirror of this sentiment expressed explicitly there.

"But loving and caring and ultimately the meaning of life, yes? Rewarding the faithful and punishing the wicked and all that. More adequate for "coping" than atheism, by my reckoning."

See above comment about the book of Job. The problem of pain and the problem of suffering don't ring any bells for you?

"That's interesting, you see, because most of the Christians I meet in real life wouldn't describe it that way."

Perhaps these do not represent honest and/or educated Christians. :)

I don't know a single one (honest and educated) who hasn't struggled with the problem of evil.

"What kind of fail is that?!"

What kind of 'fail'?

"Hm. Well, let's see what his answer is, then."

Yep, let's.

Solaris Paradox · « **Reply #35 on:** May 09, 2009, 02:18:53 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on May 07, 2009, 02:45:35 PM

"In my book, it isn't a "coping mechanism" if the believer's reasons for believing are logical rather than emotional."

Well, I'd say the same thing about atheists. That's one of the things I'm getting at. The idea that only among religionists do you find a mix of logic and emotion and coping mechanisms etc insinuates that atheists operate on nothing more than cold hard facts and Spock-like reasoning. I can't think of a single atheist that achieves that. After all, Spock was a vulcan. The rest of us are human- and that includes atheists. :)

I never said that atheists are always atheists because they're smart about it. Just that the belief doesn't do much for "coping."

Quote

Ever hear of the book of Job? I think you'll find the mirror of this sentiment expressed explicitly there.

Yeah, I remember that. Unfortunately, the Book of Job never seems to come up in my conversations with Christians in real life...

Quote

See above comment about the book of Job. The problem of pain and the problem of suffering don't ring any bells for you?

Those Christians I've mentioned always seem to portray Christianity as the answer to that problem.

Quote

Perhaps these do not represent honest and/or educated Christians. :)

That's kind of the point, Johnny.

Quote

I don't know a single one (honest and educated) who hasn't struggled with the problem of evil.

I don't know many honest and educated Christians, really.

Quote

What kind of 'fail'?

Just basic Internet lingo. "Fail" refers to anything that people do or say that's, well, stupid. And then there's "epic fail." For example:

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #36 on:** May 09, 2009, 10:01:50 AM »

"I never said that atheists are always atheists because they're smart about it. Just that the belief doesn't do much for "coping.""

Well, I'm not so sure. One doesn't want to psychoanalyze too much, because I believe that there are atheists with legitimate intellectual concerns. Still, your statement still seems to imply that they are Spockian in their outlook, even if not 'smart about it.' I'm saying that I have met atheists with definite emotional reasons for their positions. That doesn't make them 'unsmart.' Are they 'coping'? I don't know. At least on this side of the aisle I don't dismiss other people's views as 'coping mechanisms' and attempt (at least initially and for as long as I can) to put the best construction on their views.

"Yeah, I remember that. Unfortunately, the Book of Job never seems to come up in my conversations with Christians in real life..."

Perhaps more conversations with more Christians are in order...

""Perhaps these do not represent honest and/or educated Christians. :)""
"That's kind of the point, Johnny."
"I don't know many honest and educated Christians, really."

Why should the fact that you yourself don't know many honest and educated Christians matter here? Why does your experience lend itself to being representantive somehow? You don't know many but I know lots. So what if the Christians you know seem to have 'coping mechanisms'? Are they the strongest representantives of the Christian worldview? Why bother with the ones who are the weakest reps? Or more directly, why evaluate the merits of a view by its weaker spokespersons expressing its weakest points?

Surely an atheism that is a reaction to the weakest expression of Christianity isn't anything to write home about. Only the atheism that tackles the most robust expression seems to have merit in my book. And the more robust expression, in my experience, doesn't in any way resemble a 'coping mechanism.'

"Laughing Just basic Internet lingo. "Fail" refers to anything that people do or say that's, well, stupid. And then there's "epic fail.""

Crazy.

Well, would you like some documentation on the examples I gave?

Copernicus · « **Reply #37 on:** May 10, 2009, 03:19:08 PM »

Solaris, thanks for doing such a good job of defending what I said while I have been sidelined on my trip to Italy. I don't want to complain too much, but it is difficult struggling with an Italian keyboard and too little time to give a thoughtful reply. I'll come back into the discussion in about 10 days, after I get back. Right now, I need to recover from that bottle of Chianti and the heavy meal I had in a Siena restaurant. I don't mean to complain, but being a tourist in Italy can be hard sometimes, especially when I know that I could be spending my time having a conversation with EB. And tomorrow, I have to drive through the hills of Tuscany in May with all of those annoying flowers everywhere. And the castles and churches. Well, have fun with this discussion. I've got to get back on the tourist treadmill.

Copernicus · « **Reply #38 on:** May 11, 2009, 02:51:50 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on May 05, 2009, 07:54:07 AM

Could you reconcile these
two statements:
"In most cases, the argument from design seems to be a strong motivation for belief, and that is why discussions about evolution turn out to be significant."
with
"Religion is a coping method,"

Religion has more than one thing going for it. It can both explain things and help people to get through important events (both good and bad) in their lives. What keeps religion going is its practical value to believers, regardless of whether there is any truth to it. Of course, people need to really buy into it for it to have much practical value. Atheism, unlike religion, carries no inherent message about how one ought to deal with life's difficulties, nor does it "explain" anything other than the apparent fact that there is nothing beyond human society that cares about human beings (assuming we haven't been visited by aliens).

Quote

"So I would prefer that people not bring up children to believe the things you mentioned."

Do you think teaching children about hell amounts to child abuse?

Not in the worst sense of "child abuse" (i.e. physical and sexual), but I do consider it a form of abuse when children are deprived of proper medical care, are made to feel frightened and insecure, are deprived of a modern education, are taught to suppress natural skepticism and critical thinking, etc. Dawkins always qualified such statements in context, but his critics tend to forget the qualifications and take his statements out of context.

Quote

More directly, you said that it is not your place to determine such things. Do you think it is

anyone's place apart from the parents? Like, say, government officials?

I think that it is the role of the government to protect the civil rights of children, especially when they are being abused by adults.

Quote

"I also believe that children not brought up to believe them are better equipped to cope with reality."

I have no particular objection to this, but of course I believe otherwise- that what I believe is actually reality, and so for children to know about them is to better equip them. And since there is much dispute about just what reality consists of, it seems self-evident to me that the proper course is to leave the matter in the hands of parents. You?

That is the only practical way to raise children. It is the responsibility of parents to prepare them for life as adults. I do not favor meddling in that responsibility unless there are clear signs of abuse--physical harm, deprivation of food, medical care, basic education, etc.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #39 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:29:26 AM »

I knew the Chianti wouldn't last. :)

It's effects were marked though! :) Someone's having a good time!

"Religion has more than one thing going for it. It can both explain things"

ie, another form of coping. :) It explains things... regardless of whether there is any truth to it.... right?

What I'm looking for from you is any hint that a person can be a Christian (or religious) for the simple fact that they think, for the very best reasons, it is true. Then a concession that such persons exist would be nice, too.

This would be a departure from your years of contributions here but seems to me to be the basic heart of my description of your previous comments. If you cannot make these concessions here then you may as well believe you actually said as much in the past.

"Atheism, unlike religion, carries no inherent message about how one ought to deal with life's difficulties,"

Sidenote: Aren't you the one who often tells us that theism carries no inherent messages, too? Or are you going to exclude theism from the category of religion? That would be novel.

"nor does it "explain" anything other than"

Given how many atheists are atheists because of the problem of pain, suffering, and evil I think we must admit that it explains much more than what you are saying here. Ie, in the face of said problem it offers an explanation: there is no God.

"Not in the worst sense of "child abuse" (i.e. physical and sexual), but I do consider it a form of abuse when children are deprived of proper medical care, are made to feel frightened and insecure, are deprived of a modern education, are taught to suppress natural skepticism and critical thinking, etc."

You need to toss back another bottle, my friend. :)

"Dawkins always qualified such statements in context, but his critics tend to forget the qualifications and take his statements out of context.

:) Of course you are my real target. You're doing nicely.

"I think that it is the role of the government to protect the civil rights of children, especially when they are being abused by adults."

Right. And abuse includes... "are made to feel frightened and insecure, are deprived of a modern education, are taught to suppress natural skepticism and critical thinking, etc.""

Right?

"That is the only practical way to raise children. It is the responsibility of parents to prepare them for life as adults."

But wait! What about the government's duty to ensure their civil rights?

"I do not favor meddling in that responsibility unless there are clear signs of abuse--physical harm, deprivation of food, medical care, basic education, etc."

So you do not think the government has the right to meddle if children are made to feel frightened and insecure? By 'basic education' who decides what is sufficient and satisfactory? How is that decided?

This wikipedia seems to reflect the facts as I understand them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_in_Germany

What do you think? Do you agree with this decision:

Quote

In September 2006 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the German ban on homeschooling, stating "parents may not refuse ...[compulsory schooling] on the basis of their convictions", and adding that the right to education "calls for regulation by the State". The European Court took the position that the plaintiffs were the children, not their parents, and declared "children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents' decision for home education because of their young age.... Schools represent society, and it is in the children

Author Topic: Back Again and Here to Stay (Read 2676 times)