|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 13:42:47 GMT
Raising kids with religion yields quicker results. Than just waiting for them to grow up and figure out the benefits of morals and ethics. Many kids raised with religion end up on drugs and alcohol and in the gutter and dead. Absolutely. Religion is no guarantee. Many kids without religion end up on drugs, and alcohol, in the gutter or dead. But I think a kid with religion has a better chance than a kid without. All things being equal. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 13:45:58 GMT
There is much about the Universe that man cannot explain. That doesn't mean there is no explanation. That is correct, but religion has never provided a scientifically correct explanation. If an explanation exists, it will be discovered by science. Atheist and non believers have never provided a scientifically correct explanation as to wanting to believe there is no God. So anything is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Nov 19, 2024 13:46:45 GMT
No, that's just reality. What does little kids being taken to church have to do with anything? Kids don't develop morals and ethics by merely being taken to church. They develop morals and ethics from parents guiding them through life and helping them correctly understand each of the things they experience in life. Religion or not, bad parenting produces bad kids, and it's not through "fear" that kids learn to be good people. It's through love and trust and guidance. A good person will help someone out of just finding it satisfying and fulfilling the idea of someone else being helped out of a bad situation, out of just feeling that other person doesn't deserve that problem. Doing the right thing because you're afraid of punishment is just acting out of self-interest, nothing to do with an action taken out of really understanding and feeling it's the right action. No that is wrong. Little kids learn and develop morality by going to church, instruction and example. Nobody knows if God exist. And nobody can prove whether or not He exist. So it's best to teach your children the truth. There may be a God and and afterlife. So if you want to go to Heaven, you better do the right thing.
This sounds a lot like Pascal's wager. What if the Norse gods are the real gods and the only way if going to Valhalla is to die in battle with a sword in hand? |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Nov 19, 2024 13:51:53 GMT
No that is wrong. Little kids learn and develop morality by going to church, instruction and example. Nobody knows if God exist. And nobody can prove whether or not He exist. So it's best to teach your children the truth. There may be a God and and afterlife. So if you want to go to Heaven, you better do the right thing.
This sounds a lot like Pascal's wager. What if the Norse gods are the real gods and the only way if going to Valhalla is to die in battle with a sword in hand?
Sikh and ye shall find
|
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 19, 2024 14:00:13 GMT
No, I'm not, since religions (at least the mainstream ones) were and are defined by religious institutions. I mean, is everyone making up their own religion out of thin air, or are they all using what a religious institution came up with as a base at least?
Even those institutions seem to be getting flexible more and more. Part of the reason there are so many variations as it is.
They're getting flexible because they no longer hold the absolute power and authority they once did. The world is mostly secular now and the only way they can stay relevent and keep the donations coming in is by changing. I mean, the kind of absolute authority the Mullahs in Iran have that we're always bitching about? That used to be the norm globally, not the exception. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Nov 19, 2024 14:03:03 GMT
Even those institutions seem to be getting flexible more and more. Part of the reason there are so many variations as it is.
They're getting flexible because they no longer hold the absolute power and authority they once did. The world is mostly secular now and the only way they can stay relevent and keep the donations coming in is by changing. I mean, the kind of absolute authority the Mullahs in Iran have that we're always bitching about? That used to be the norm globally, not the exception.
I know.
It's similar to all of the GOPers who still claim to be conservatives. They clearly are not, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Nov 19, 2024 14:06:06 GMT
You are mixing together religion as a cultural phenomena and religious institutions. No, I'm not, since religions (at least the mainstream ones) were and are defined by religious institutions. I mean, is everyone making up their own religion out of thin air, or are they all using what a religious institution came up with as a base at least? Well, yeah... That's pretty much how it works. People come up with ideas which could work for preservation and necessary development of their culture and these ideas either work or not. It's a simulation of the evolution on social level. We actually have an historical example - Islam. First Muhammad peddled a version of generic Abrahamic bull - it didn't work at all and nearly got him killed. The new - Medina - version brought him a lot of followers, turned Arabs into an almost unstoppable force and changed history forever. Obviously it took longer for other world religions to form but the process was not dissimilar. Religious institutions come later. And they do not define religion. They - if they are smart enough - redefine them to suit cultural and environmental changes and challenges. We can bemoan the loss of pagan cults but ultimately their time ended when human civilization got more complex. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 14:28:08 GMT
No that is wrong. Little kids learn and develop morality by going to church, instruction and example. Nobody knows if God exist. And nobody can prove whether or not He exist. So it's best to teach your children the truth. There may be a God and and afterlife. So if you want to go to Heaven, you better do the right thing.
This sounds a lot like Pascal's wager. What if the Norse gods are the real gods and the only way if going to Valhalla is to die in battle with a sword in hand? Absolutely. Same with the Eastern religions and Western religions. And no God at all. Anything is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 19, 2024 14:37:00 GMT
No, I'm not, since religions (at least the mainstream ones) were and are defined by religious institutions. I mean, is everyone making up their own religion out of thin air, or are they all using what a religious institution came up with as a base at least? Well, yeah... That's pretty much how it works. People come up with ideas which could work for preservation and necessary development of their culture and these ideas either work or not. It's a simulation of the evolution on social level. We actually have an historical example - Islam. First Muhammad peddled a version of generic Abrahamic bull - it didn't work at all and nearly got him killed. The new - Medina - version brought him a lot of followers, turned Arabs into an almost unstoppable force and changed history forever. Obviously it took longer for other world religions to form but the process was not dissimilar. Religious institutions come later. And they do not define religion. They - if they are smart enough - redefine them to suit cultural and environmental changes and challenges. We can bemoan the loss of pagan cults but ultimately their time ended when human civilization got more complex. Religious institutions come simultaneously. Once Muhammed had underlings and followers the institution existed. You can't have a religion without some form of institution to define it, because religion by its very nature requires some form of hierarchy to set the rules and decide which stories are relevent. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 14:42:40 GMT
Well, yeah... That's pretty much how it works. People come up with ideas which could work for preservation and necessary development of their culture and these ideas either work or not. It's a simulation of the evolution on social level. We actually have an historical example - Islam. First Muhammad peddled a version of generic Abrahamic bull - it didn't work at all and nearly got him killed. The new - Medina - version brought him a lot of followers, turned Arabs into an almost unstoppable force and changed history forever. Obviously it took longer for other world religions to form but the process was not dissimilar. Religious institutions come later. And they do not define religion. They - if they are smart enough - redefine them to suit cultural and environmental changes and challenges. We can bemoan the loss of pagan cults but ultimately their time ended when human civilization got more complex. Religious institutions come simultaneously. Once Muhammed had underlings and followers the institution existed. You can't have a religion without some form of institution to define it, because religion by its very nature requires some form of hierarchy to set the rules and decide which stories are relevent. That is a macro problem. Not a micro problem. Today more and more people are religious, without belonging to any religious organization. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 19, 2024 15:01:30 GMT
Good religious institutions provide a moral, ethical, spiritual and educational base. That is not available without religious institutions. If you can't provide serious data to back up this claim, it can be and should be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 19, 2024 15:04:17 GMT
Religious institutions come simultaneously. Once Muhammed had underlings and followers the institution existed. You can't have a religion without some form of institution to define it, because religion by its very nature requires some form of hierarchy to set the rules and decide which stories are relevent. That is a macro problem. Not a micro problem. Today more and more people are religious, without belonging to any religious organization. As I said before, they're not just making those religions up. They're basing their beliefs on what the institutions came up with. The whole "religious without religion" thing just means you still believe most of what the institutions tell you to believe and you're not giving any of them any cash. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 15:23:49 GMT
That is a macro problem. Not a micro problem. Today more and more people are religious, without belonging to any religious organization. As I said before, they're not just making those religions up. They're basing their beliefs on what the institutions came up with. The whole "religious without religion" thing just means you still believe most of what the institutions tell you to believe and you're not giving any of them any cash. You can have religious institutions with a hierarchy. But combine that with a good education, and eventually people learn to think for themselves. That means they no longer blindly follow whatever that religious institution says. Good religious institutions provide a moral, ethical, spiritual and educational base. That is not available without religious institutions. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 15:27:21 GMT
Good religious institutions provide a moral, ethical, spiritual and educational base. That is not available without religious institutions. If you can't provide serious data to back up this claim, it can be and should be dismissed as complete and utter nonsense. I grew up in a religious institution. It provided me with a good education, good morals, good ethics, and good spirituality. And same for many of my friends and family. On the other hand, I know many people who did not grow up in a religious institution. I can see the difference.. I know many teachers who have taught in religious schools, non religious schools and both. They tell me what differences they see in the children in school, the parents of the children, and the children after they grow up into adults. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Nov 19, 2024 15:27:49 GMT
So true. I noticed Based Chad has not tried to defend the music of Stacie Orrico or Sixpence Non The Richer against the music of Rimsky-Korsakow or Shostakovich. I wonder why... not. The quality of music usually hasn't much to do with the religious affiliation. Another thing: The Beatles are as significant to pop music as Mozart is to classical music. And anybody who claims point blank that classical music is better than pop music isn't anyone whose opinion on music I have to take seriously. How about Wagner, who flip-flopped between operas with heavily pagan themes (Ring Cycle) and some of the most magnificently haywire Christian-themed music ever (Tannhauser)? For the uninitiated: in Tannhauser, a perpetual virgin Christian and a pagan sex goddess inexplicably compete for the affections of an utter douchebag who does not deserve either one of them. I love it.It must have been Wagner's autobiography. |
|
