JESUS CAMP

[juancarlos]

zoffster1 said:

juancarlos said:

Imho, atheism is religion because we cannot exist in a moral vacuum. Atheism has its own core beliefs, though it's highly informal.

What beliefs do you think there are? Atheism doesn't have a prescribed set of morals. I really think you're reading more into it than there is.



Well first of all, an omnipotent being would have far more options at his disposal than just making everyone immortal. Maybe the birthrate is really high and people grow up in a manner of seconds to kill or be killed. When you're dealing with omnipotence anything is possible.
I don't quite follow why being immortal would remove freedom of choice though. How do you arrive at that conclusion?



I wasn't comparing the two items, I was merely pointing out that what parents do to their children can be monitored without turning parents against children. If johnny turned up at school one day and said to the teacher "mummy said there is an old bearded guy that lives on a cloud and tortures us forever if we don't listen to him" it would be fairly obvious that he was being exposed to religious teachings.

juancarlos said:

Your society would hardly be Utopian. It would be one bloody hell. Lol.

Not really, after all the undesirables have been eliminated it would be very peaceful

I'm not really well versed in atheism, but as far as I understand, its core beliefs include the following:

1. Absence of the existence of God;

2. Absence of creation process;

3. Non-existence of heaven/hell;

4. Moral relativism.


Atheism has been defined as a religion by at least one U.S. Court.

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874


With regard to the hypothetical world, if the people were immortal, then it wouldn't make a significant difference if they get murdered and resurrected instantaneously than if they weren't murdered. So, if there's no difference in the consequences of one's actions, that's not a real choice. The people are robots.

Sure, God in His omnipotence could have solved the problem of justice and penalty instanteously without sacrificing His Son. But in that process, there wouldn't be a choice for you and me either. We wouldn't have to choose, and that's not what God wants. He doesn't want robots.

[juancarlos]

chakkaphak said:

^
Morality is not religion You're subtly falling into the same mindset you were denying. The thought that atheists/agnostics can't have morality without religion.

Let me rephrase then. In this context, I define religion loosely as a set of values/beliefs for living one's life, and morality as the practice of "right" and "wrong". Generally, you can't have one without the other. So, to me, atheism is a religion because it has its own set of values/beliefs. Religion does not need to be limited to beliefs in a supreme being.

In my other post, I defined "moral" as a good person. There are tons of atheists who are good people, as there are tons of professing Christians who are bad people.

[long]

You're well spoken.. I agree with most of what you said, and this just amounts to semantics perhaps, but the atheist/agnostic types will generally call "a set of values/beliefs for living one's life" simply a philosophy. Moral philosophy becomes religion when it is attached to culture, ritual, faith about the nature of the universe, institutions, etc.. Atheism is an umbrella term that catches all who reject existing religions, so while it is true that they can have values and beliefs you should realize that atheism does not imply any particular set of values and beliefs. In my eyes this makes it impossible to call it religion in even the loosest sense that you describe.

@ Zoff: you're just playing with a thought experiment I hope For now I'll leave it between you two. If you're completely serious, I'd certainly think that your 'solution' is much worse than the problem.

[juancarlos]

zoffster1 said:

juancarlos said:

Oh, I'm not against people having the right to choose for themselves. However, for religious people, faith is part and parcel of their lives and their identity, like culture is. To force them to sever themselves from their identity in performing parenting is extreme, impractical, and cruel. If one is Chinese, can you force them to parent in such a way as to deny their Chinese culture and identity without greatly straining the parent-child relationship?

Why are you so against people having a right to choose the way they want to raise their kids?

because the parents are forcing their beliefs on someone who cannot resist. Beliefs which will probably have a profound effect on the child in question and could potentially be detrimental to it.

The person can always choose to learn these beliefs later on, when s/he actually understands them. S/he cannot choose to unlearn them once they have been forced into his/her head.

Are the parents feelings more important than the child's right to choose?

If parents culturally want their children to work from a very young age to help support the family, do we allow this? If a family culturally doesn't believe in sending children to school or receiving a formal education, do we allow them to keep children home and uneducated?

Just because someone culturally believes in doing something, doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

In our society, the needs of the child always come before the 'rights' of the parent.

People do have a right to raise their children in their own way within reason. I simply believe that religious indoctrination goes beyond what is reasonable

Of course, he/she can force to unlearn them after he/she matures. How else did you reject Catholicism though you were raised as one? That's just part of the maturing process ... to eventually question the things you were taught.

Can a Chinese parent in China then raise a child effectively if you forbid the parent to speak Chinese at home, cook Chinese food, etc.?

You're right ... some people carry religious instruction to an extreme, and it is disturbing. But just because they do does not mean we have to make it illegal. Similar with driving, just because you have a few drunk drivers does not mean you should ban driving altogether. Unless of course, you also hold the latter position. Lol.

[cm]

ladystacey said:

^Really you saw the film and you think for kids to say, yes they would die for their Christian belief and if it came down to it they would follow violence in any way and kill is alright? It's only a bit extreme for a 7 year old to say they are the victim and they want to right it in any means? That's a scary thing to hear a kid say that and mean it to the core. They put those kids threw so much mental stress and emotional distress and guilt how is that right to do that to a kid when their religion is about acceptance, peace, love, etc. So I assume you saw the follow up with documentary right? How they are much better off and better citizens now, LOL ummm... right.
In no way do I think the MTV generation, sex and drugs and all of that is right of course it isn't I don't think you need to follow a religion to be a good person or have family values.
I think religion can be good to for those that need it but can balance it and not take it to the extreme where it involves wanting to hurt other people.
In the film they interviewed Evangelist and they even had their own famous pastor admitting that their religion is great in bringing in the weak minded because how can they resist the positive mentality that the church offers and with that they follow. Those are dangerous statements to make, to admit to use and manipulate people like that, that's not very Jesus is it?
There are great pastors out there as well but like I said in regards to the film I find it frightening that many in the congregation find this type of preaching o.k for kids, and those that do have a issue with it turn a blind eye or hope it will go away.

I didn't see any followup documentary. I saw the first one.

I never said it was completely right what they were teaching these kids, but it isn't all horrible as you make it out to be. I mean, it might be good that these kids are instilled values of not to have premarital sex and see abortion as the solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

And I don't see what's wrong if somebody says they would die for their beliefs. If you think that is crazy, then you are saying that a lot of American soldiers who believe in America are willing to die for freedom.

The Christian belief is Jesus died on a cross to save the souls of all of humanity. Your goal in life to to live by his word, and example.

People like to give Evangelists a hard time, but if you ever meet them, they are pretty nice people. I'll have a coffee with an Evangelist than some smug hippy 'liberal', whose parents bought him a Loft in SF, and brags about his trips to Vienna all day.

[cm]

Atheists seem to believe that God must be some man with a beard in the sky, but is that what every religion says?

Many religions describe God as a force that man simply cannot comprehend. Adjectives such as creator are taken too literally, as thinking God logically thinks like us, and set out on some sort of plan.

In many films, God is portrayed as a glob of bright shinning light, a lot like what our universe started out with (according to believers of the Big Bang theory).

In truth, does religion really contradict science? Or do atheists are fast to make the statement based on reading religious text to literally?

I will quote a Hindu text

The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda describes the origin of the universe as:

"Then was not non-existence nor existence: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. Darkness there was at first concealed in darkness this. All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The devas are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not" - (Rig Veda 10.129.1-7)

[juancarlos]

Zoff,

Is not believing in something not a belief in itself?

If an atheist does not believe in God and is not a moral relativist, how then would they define right from wrong?

You seem to forget that how we live often times also determines how we die. Sure, it's all death in the end, but the manner of it also matters, and therefore it presents a choice of how we live our lives. In the Christian faith, we actually believe that some people have never died. If you were participating in elections and no matter who you vote for, Kim Jong Il wins, is that a real choice?

Well, first of all, let's settle on a definition of "omnipotence" because I think that's clouding the discussion a bit. What does it mean to you? For instance, when the omnipotent voluntarily and temporarily surrenders that power, do they actually lose their omnipotent nature to you? When the omnipotent chooses to abide by the rules they themselves established, is that losing their omnipotence to you?

Going back to the question of raising children, are you in fact stating that all parents create havoc in the lives of their children by instructing them religiously? Or are you saying that only some parents engage in such practice? Is any form of religious instruction of children bad?

JC

P.S. How do you parcel out the quotes so that they don't appear as a whole block? That would help me format the way you do your posts so it's more coherent and easier to read.

[juancarlos]

Never mind this cutting and pasting. It's giving me a migraine.

About "inactive" atheism, I don't really consider that real atheism because a person simply does not know about God. I mean to deny the existence of God would require someone to have a concept of what a "god" is imho.

Can you give me an example of a moral philosophy that an atheist may adhere too that is not relativist and still have coherence?

With regard to choices, I am not talking about a fake choice, where you think you're choosing when in fact it doesn't matter what you choose ... the outcome remains the same. That's not real choice to me.

With regard to the murder scenario, murder with instantaneous resurrection vs murder with no resurrection are apples and oranges. Instantaneous resurrection is almost similar to not having died at all, and makes murder (if we can call it that) inconsequential. Because it is inconsequential, then that is not a real choice to me. Choosing to murder or not would look like a choice on paper, but in the practical application, it is not. The operative word is "real" in real choice.

Murder with no immediate resurrection is totally different. Again, some people in my faith may actually not die at all. So, that's already a different consequence. If murder did not happen, that living person has the potential to make a difference in the world. So it is not inconsequential in this case the act of murder, and therefore it is a "real" choice.

We have a difference of opinion in the definition of omnipotence. To me, if an omnipotent being chooses to for a temporary period give up power, and then take it up again, I don't think that entity has lost omnipotence at all. It's like a king choosing to disguise as a beggar for a day and foregoing of kingly privileges. Did he ever really lose his identity/character as a king? In fact, restraining oneself is not a weakness to me, but rather a highlight of one's strength.

As far as religious instruction by parents, I don't really view it in a negative light as you do. I was raised as a Protestant, still am, and have not been repressed when I questioned things growing up. My point about the culture illustration is that faith and religion are such an integral part of a person's identity that to restrict them in that realm during parenting is to insist that parents deny who they are.

We also disagree on whether religious instruction by parents is harmful or not. I think that generally it is not harmful. Just because some parents may take it to the extreme and "harm" a child does not mean we should make it a crime to do so. Moreover, you seemed to concede that the harm itself, if it occurs, is not extremely disastrous that you disagreed with my using the word "havoc" when describing it.

That's why I used the illustration of driving privileges, where just because you have a few bad drivers causing accidents does not warrant banning driving altogether. Timing of eligibility for driving privileges is irrelevant and is not the point.

With regard to making choices for the child by the parents, there are other far more binding and consequential choices that parents make besides religious instruction. First, parents can choose whether to have you or abort you. I mean if they abort you, then everything else doesn't matter, does it? Are you advocating of taking away that right from parents too? If not, why not?

Parents choose where their children will live. If they'll be living in a trailer park in a neo-Nazi neighborhood, are you gonna take their children to foster care and haul their parents to jail? Don't you see that you're advocating for a police state, my lord?

JC

[juancarlos]

About humanism, it says that it involves a search for objective truth. So, what happens then if my objective truth is different from your objective truth? Which truth stands?

With regard to choices, I don't consider something a real choice if the outcome is the same and pre-determined no matter which option I choose. About U.S. presidential elections, that the outcome is pre-determined is not something certain, and therefore I don't consider that example a valid illustration.

I said "almost similar", not "almost inconsequential" about the murderverse. Plus, we were talking about instantaneous resurrection .... a matter of seconds ... so I think the outcome of the murder to the murdered is inconsequential, and therefore is not a real choice to me. Given that people in the murderverse are immortal, i.e. no end to their lives, it doesn't really matter if they were out of it for a second or two, given that they are actually more out of it when they sleep, assuming that they do sleep.

About the sandwich, it's possible that it wouldn't matter which sandwich I pick for lunch. But it's also possible that one of them would give me diarrhea and the other wouldn't. So, it's not inconsequential.

So, let me ask you this ... just speaking conceptually ... would you consider it a real choice if the outcome is already pre-determined and it doesn't matter which option you pick as the result will be the same?

Regarding people not having died at all, just because you can't prove something does not mean it didn't happen. In this life you can't prove that some people haven't died, but when you die, you will know. If a rare butterfly species perishes completely in a rainforest leaving no trace whatsoever, does that mean it never really existed?

So, if your mom used to tell you to always wash your hands before eating, not to eat sweets before meals, wear this and not that, dress as Tarzan for halloween, wouldn't that be brain washing also? Shouldn't those be banned as well for heaven knows your pix of little Tarzan may be circulated thru your school and "traumatize" you for the rest of your life?

Btw, I was not the one who advocated making it illegal for parents to conduct religious teaching in the home. You did. To me, that creates a great intrusion into the private lives of people, much more than it is now, just because you subjectively think it's "harmful" for children. I frankly don't care if you want to raise your own children in a non-religious environment, but it's another issue if you want to dictate how I raise my own kids religiously. And that's why I said you would be creating a police state in that way.

JC

[long]

juancarlos said:

About humanism, it says that it involves a search for objective truth. So, what happens then if my objective truth is different from your objective truth? Which truth stands?

- This is the same as the conflict between people of different religions. They both stand in the minds of those who believe in them. If I believe in it objectively, it means I think you're wrong, period.

But I do think many humanists would deny the existence of objective moral truths. Can you quote the part where you see that, I couldn't find it.. The source of objective morality for an atheist is definitely a tricky thing.

[juancarlos]

chakkaphak said:

juancarlos said:

About humanism, it says that it involves a search for objective truth. So, what happens then if my objective truth is different from your objective truth? Which truth stands?

- This is the same as the conflict between people of different religions. They both stand in the minds of those who believe in them. If I believe in it objectively, it means I think you're wrong, period.

But I do think many humanists would deny the existence of objective moral truths. Can you quote the part where you see that, I couldn't find it.. The source of objective morality for an atheist is definitely a tricky thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

I zeroed in on secular humanism because in this thread Zoff and I were discussing humanism as a non-relativistic moral philosophy held by atheists.

[Aiko]

Jesus lives.

[long]

juancarlos said:

chakkaphak said:

- This is the same as the conflict between people of different religions. They both stand in the minds of those who believe in them. If I believe in it objectively, it means I think you're wrong, period.

But I do think many humanists would deny the existence of objective moral truths. Can you quote the part where you see that, I couldn't find it.. The source of objective morality for an atheist is definitely a tricky thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

I zeroed in on secular humanism because in this thread Zoff and I were discussing humanism as a non-relativistic moral philosophy held by atheists.

- Ah, I see. As I suspected it mentions search for objective truth without specifying objective 'moral truth'. I suppose some secular humanists would think there morals were objective, but I'm guessing most are relativists when you press them.

[long]

zoffster1 said:

If your mother convinces you that you are tarzan and should therefore practice swinging from ropes, wear only a loincloth and grunt at people instead of speaking. That you must feel guilty for walking upright, or for using grammar because the jungle has deemed these things to be wrong. That if you don't do these things the Crocodile of doom will chew on your immortal soul for all eternity.
Then you are approaching something closer to a comparison.

- Very cute. I like what you did here.

- Since you continue developing this idea it seems worth saying: the whole notion is completely impossible. Even if parents were somehow completely prevented from uttering a word about religion to their children, there is absolutely no way that a child could go through life to adulthood without being exposed to religion by society. Once a child is exposed to religion the question of its authenticity is unavoidable, the child will seek the answer himself. Religion by its very nature indoctrinates, whether the source is parental or societal shouldn't make a big difference. Perhaps you imagine allowing Atheists to speak their mind while suppressing religious thought (police state), otherwise a spiritual vacuum will exist for the child and the child is highly likely to accept religion upon first exposure. To prevent any exposure would require draconian measures of extreme oppression, don't forget that many are willing to die rather than have their religious practice denied them.

[halfbreed]

There's a lot of talking going on in this thread. Just thought I'd point it out. kthnx. bai.