Is religion inferior to logic ?

[F1fan]

The likelihood is irrelevant. What matters is that it's entirely possible for anyone to reject it, and leave it.

This is the point, a religious family in a religious community and indoctrinating children into belief they are not able to assess and critique. Even many adults are not taught to think beyond what they believe due to social exveriences?

People choose to stay or leave it according to their own ideals and experiences.

Really, it's that simple? Do you really think young adults who were indoctrinated into a believe system really are free to reject their beliefs if they feel inner pressure to conform? You make it sound like you are asking someone to choose a different brand of cola.

The religion is not forcibly holding or brainwashing anyone. No religion is. And even what few cults there actually are out there are ultimately voluntary. Their members are choosing to forfeit their freedom of thought and action.

That is not how social influence works. Look at young girls suffering from depression and commit suicide due to negative exveriences on social media.

The Dangerous Experiment on Teen Girls

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that social media is causing real damage to adolescents.

www.theatlantic.com

This is an example of how social influence works on the minds of people, especially the young. You will be able to find exceptions of the norm. I experienced subtle influence by adults and family. My grandma would tell to me to do X to please God. She used religious manipulation in an attempt to get me to behave. All that did to me was cause me to ask more questions, I wasn't like my cousins who believed it, sort of. Even though my cousins were Catholic they discovered fast that if mom or dad didn't know about their naughty deeds that they would face no consequences. But they still went to Mass, to confession, believed in God to varying degrees, etc. They toed the line, they didn't reject Catholicism to this day, except two of them. My cousins even raised their kids to be Catholic. You'd think they would remember how much they hated Mass and wouldn't, but that is how the primal brain works, it seeks conformity to build tribal trust and reduse anxiety by creating stability of norms. That primal urge is what keeps so many folks devoted to old norms even in modern times. It's not reason.

That they like being a part of.

Right, people are motivated by tribal comforts.

Children are not yet ready to make choices regarding ideals of that level and complexity.

So then why are parents dragging their kids to church on Sunday mornings? I remember going to Sunday school and being told about Jesus, but I definiately asked questions they didn't like. I was one of those annoying kids who kept asking "why?" The teacher exvected us to accept Jesus as savior just as we all accepted Santa Claus. I just happened to be one of the few that didn't just buy into it. My twin sister did, she went from religion to religion through her life seeking the "truth" and was never satisfied. She often joined a church of a friend or boyfriend, and it never stuck. She kind of settled on Urantia, but religion is not very important in her life any more. I think she discovered that truth is not some head full of irrational ideas to believe in. She is like my late mother who still believes in a God. Neither my mom or sister could explain why they believe. I gave them my two cent's worth as to why belief is God is not helpful or rational, and neither had any rebuttal, they just never took time to think about it. But they got the idea of God from somewhere, like the rest of us, and that is family and society. If the ideas are not questioned then they are likely going to be adoted without thought or doubt. And that begins in childhood. You said it yourself "Children are not yet ready to make choices regarding ideals of that level and complexity."

Their parents make those choices for them. But as they become adults, they become able to choose for themselves. I'm not sure why you seem to find this objectionable.

Because not all parents are wise. Do you think the MAGA paraents yelling at teachers in school board meetings are raising their kids in a stable home environment? What do you think those kids are learning? How to be reasonable? How to look at other's point of view? How to compromise and work well with others? How many of these kids have access to guns that are not secured?

Dogma is taught. The more dogmatic a parent the more dogmatic the influence. You have this rose-colored glasses attitude that is unrealistic.

Not really, as your parents had chosen for you just as their parents had chosen for them.

Did they really think through what they were doing, or just following the social norm? That is the question. Given your distain for atheists I doubt you would support parents influencing kids, and their kid's friends, and other family members, why belief in God is absurd and even dangerous. Do you support parents doing this as their deliberate and reasoned choice?

They knew they had a choice when they became adults. We all do. It's part of becoming an adult.

As studies show we humans, especially as we age, make fewer objective and deliberate decisions as you suggest.

Human Decision Making - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Human Decision-Making is Rarely Rational​

​

Jeff Johnson, in Designing with the Mind in Mind (Third Edition), 2021​

​

Important Takeaways​

• Human decision-making is strongly biased by unconscious mental processes (system one) that sometimes produce good outcomes quickly but sometimes cause us to make irrational choices. Our rational mind (system two) rarely intervenes.
• Fear of loss influences human decisions more than expectation of gains. This bias affects people’s choices in risky situations, like whether to buy insurance, accept lawsuit settlements, gamble, or skydive. Psychologists Kahneman and Tversky conducted experiments demonstrating the pervasiveness and strength of this bias.
• Framing—how a choice is worded—affects how people choose. People prefer a sure thing over a gamble when options are worded as gains, and gambles over sure things when the identical options are worded as losses. This bias makes people susceptible to anchoring: a mind trick where someone sets your expectations to a certain level, then shows you either how to improve your outcome or how to avoid a worse outcome.
• People are biased toward options that are easier to recall or envision. A close relative’s experience with a product influences our willingness to buy it much more than reading statistics or online reviews about the product.
• Our past decisions bias our future ones, because people try to behave consistently. Therefore, people tend to stay with what is familiar, stick with losing causes longer than they should, and like things better if they put more effort into getting them.
• Emotions are critical to decision-making. Without an emotional response of some sort, it is difficult to make decisions.
• Designing to exploit strengths and weaknesses of human decision-making:

• Support rational decision-making: Help system two override or co-opt system one by providing all options, showing alternatives, providing unbiased data, performing calculations for users rather than forcing them to calculate, and checking the assumptions underlying the reasoning.​

• Make AI-based systems more transparent.​

• Use data visualization to harness system one to support system two.
• Use persuasion ethically. Don’t influence people to do what is contrary to their own interests.

All the more reason why we need our schools to teach comparative religion, not hide from it and leave it to ill-informed parents and agenda-seeking politicians.

I will agree with this, and teaching critical thinking which you decided to ignore (deliberately?). How man parents will protest comparitive religion being taught to their kids if they think their brand of religion is the Truth? Do you really think parents in red states want to risk their kids hearing about Sharia law in Islam? Do you think these parents are rational and making sound judgments (as they still support Trump as president)?

 

[F1fan]

Typical RF response

Good questions asked of irrational claims. If you had the truth you could answer. That is why religion is inferior to logic. Will you understand this? Let's find out.

 

[Jimmy]

Good questions asked of irrational claims. If you had the truth you could answer. That is why religion is inferior to logic. Will you understand this? Let's find out.

Unfortunately people like you will never understand spirituality and intuition so you’re better off not squabbling over your petty debates of logic vs religion.

 

[F1fan]

Unfortunately people like you ...

What is people like me?

... will never understand spirituality and intuition ...

What do you think spirituality and intuition are? Be specific and use facts.

so you’re better off not squabbling over your petty debates of logic vs religion.

We are debating issues, and religion is known to not rely on ogic in any way. You come accross quite defensive in this response, are you feeling uncomfortable about what I stated?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good questions asked of irrational claims. If you had the truth you could answer. That is why religion is inferior to logic. Will you understand this? Let's find out.

I have seen no evidence as per objective evidence that religion is inferior to logic. That one is a first person subjective evaluation.
Now I do understand what you are saying and I agree that logic is different than religion and you can learn something from logic that religion lack. But inferior, how do you know that? What is your evidence as evidence?

 

[PureX]

This is the point, a religious family in a religious community and indoctrinating children into belief they are not able to assess and critique. Even many adults are not taught to think beyond what they believe due to social exveriences?

They will look for better alternatives when they decide they need them. All the information is out there. All they have to do is decide to look. And if they are not satisfied, they will decide to look elsewhere. Their religion is not stopping them. And it couldn't if it wanted to. I don't understand why you insist on presuming that they are robots that cannot question their programming. If they don't do so, it's because they are choosing not to. And we have to presume that they are doing this because they like the results.

Really, it's that simple? Do you really think young adults who were indoctrinated into a believe system really are free to reject their beliefs if they feel inner pressure to conform?

Yes I do. And they do so every day. Many of them. Just as many choose not to do so. I think it's sad that you seem to have so little respect for the choices of others that you have to presume they're too weak or stupid to choose for themselves.

You make it sound like you are asking someone to choose a different brand of cola.

It's far more complex and difficult then that. But people do it every day.

That is not how social influence works. Look at young girls suffering from depression and commit suicide due to negative experiences on social media.

Young girls are not adults. And unfortunately they have not yet learned how to establish and maintain their own sense of worth. Partly this is their parents fault as it is their parent's job to teach them that.

Right, people are motivated by tribal comforts.

Yes, they are. And that is their choice, as adults, and as humans.

So then why are parents dragging their kids to church on Sunday mornings?

Because it's their job to give their children an ideological framework that they can use until they become adults, and can develop and choose their own.

I remember going to Sunday school and being told about Jesus, but I definiately asked questions they didn't like. I was one of those annoying kids who kept asking "why?" The teacher exvected us to accept Jesus as savior just as we all accepted Santa Claus. I just happened to be one of the few that didn't just buy into it. My twin sister did, she went from religion to religion through her life seeking the "truth" and was never satisfied. She often joined a church of a friend or boyfriend, and it never stuck. She kind of settled on Urantia, but religion is not very important in her life any more. I think she discovered that truth is not some head full of irrational ideas to believe in. She is like my late mother who still believes in a God. Neither my mom or sister could explain why they believe. I gave them my two cent's worth as to why belief is God is not helpful or rational, and neither had any rebuttal, they just never took time to think about it. But they got the idea of God from somewhere, like the rest of us, and that is family and society. If the ideas are not questioned then they are likely going to be adoted without thought or doubt. And that begins in childhood. You said it yourself "Children are not yet ready to make choices regarding ideals of that level and complexity."

Kids are different. Adults are different. It's why different people make different choices. As it should be.

Because not all parents are wise

That isn't the fault of religion.

Dogma is taught. The more dogmatic a parent the more dogmatic the influence. You have this rose-colored glasses attitude that is unrealistic.

And usually, when their kids become adults, they rebel and reject all that dogmatism. Not always, but often. Just as some kids raised without the benefit of a set ideology might rebel and become attracted to overly dogmatic ideologies. None of this is the fault of religion, however.

Did they really think through what they were doing, or just following the social norm?

Do any of us? People are what they are. And that often means emotionally reactive, and irrational.

That is the question. Given your distain for atheists I doubt you would support parents influencing kids, and their kid's friends, and other family members, why belief in God is absurd and even dangerous. Do you support parents doing this as their deliberate and reasoned choice?

I don't disdain atheists. I disdain dishonesty and willful ignorance.

As studies show we humans, especially as we age, make fewer objective and deliberate decisions as you suggest.

Human Decision Making - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Human Decision-Making is Rarely Rational​

​

Jeff Johnson, in Designing with the Mind in Mind (Third Edition), 2021​

​

Important Takeaways​

• Human decision-making is strongly biased by unconscious mental processes (system one) that sometimes produce good outcomes quickly but sometimes cause us to make irrational choices. Our rational mind (system two) rarely intervenes.
• Fear of loss influences human decisions more than expectation of gains. This bias affects people’s choices in risky situations, like whether to buy insurance, accept lawsuit settlements, gamble, or skydive. Psychologists Kahneman and Tversky conducted experiments demonstrating the pervasiveness and strength of this bias.
• Framing—how a choice is worded—affects how people choose. People prefer a sure thing over a gamble when options are worded as gains, and gambles over sure things when the identical options are worded as losses. This bias makes people susceptible to anchoring: a mind trick where someone sets your expectations to a certain level, then shows you either how to improve your outcome or how to avoid a worse outcome.
• People are biased toward options that are easier to recall or envision. A close relative’s experience with a product influences our willingness to buy it much more than reading statistics or online reviews about the product.
• Our past decisions bias our future ones, because people try to behave consistently. Therefore, people tend to stay with what is familiar, stick with losing causes longer than they should, and like things better if they put more effort into getting them.
• Emotions are critical to decision-making. Without an emotional response of some sort, it is difficult to make decisions.
• Designing to exploit strengths and weaknesses of human decision-making:

• Support rational decision-making: Help system two override or co-opt system one by providing all options, showing alternatives, providing unbiased data, performing calculations for users rather than forcing them to calculate, and checking the assumptions underlying the reasoning.​

• Make AI-based systems more transparent.​

• Use data visualization to harness system one to support system two.
• Use persuasion ethically. Don’t influence people to do what is contrary to their own interests.

I will agree with this, and teaching critical thinking which you decided to ignore (deliberately?). How man parents will protest comparitive religion being taught to their kids if they think their brand of religion is the Truth? Do you really think parents in red states want to risk their kids hearing about Sharia law in Islam? Do you think these parents are rational and making sound judgments (as they still support Trump as president)?

Studies show that humans are human. Studies also show that most humans agree with some form of religious ideology. And many of them do engage in religious practice. As is their right.

 

[F1fan]

I have seen no evidence as per objective evidence that religion is inferior to logic.

OK, this is your oinion, where is the logical explalantion?

That one is a first person subjective evaluation.

So? Where is your logical explanation that this is a serious problem?

The odd thing if we are all "tainted" by our subjectivity then why do you bother posting your views at all? Logic is a set of rules that helps eliminate the problems of subjectivity, but you don;t acknowledge that it is reliable, and even more reliable than religion which allows the worst effects of subjectivity?

Now I do understand what you are saying and I agree that logic is different than religion and you can learn something from logic that religion lack. But inferior, how do you know that? What is your evidence as evidence?

Here you go down into your defaulkr rabit hole of "we can't know anything so we are paralyzed". Of course you don;t really believe this because you continue to post. And you post your views as if they are sound and reliable, even though anyone elses views you subject to your "we can't know anything".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, this is your oinion, where is the logical explalantion?

...

Evidence as per the standard of being objective can't also not be objective as subjective. That is a contradiction. Something can't at the same time and place be and not be in the same sense. In this case objective and not objective.
So that religion is inferior to logic, is as a claim either objective or not and that ties into evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, there are no other causes..

Not helpful..
In order for communities to get on with one another, they need to respect each other.
The blame game does not encourage this to happen.

 

[PureX]

I think that it is great you were afforded such a well-rounded education. I certainly do not disagree that a religiously affiliated school can offer a well-rounded education. This issue is whether *all* do so.

Why is that an issue for you? Since when is ANY institutional effort for the betterment of mankind 100% effective? Many Catholic schools are better than many public schools. So why aren't you decrying the imperfections of the public school system?

Also, Catholicism represents a pretty big slice of Christianity and of religion in general. Yet you want to ignore all the good religion does in the world and focus solely it's failures. Even while there are no other organized institutions out there that are even trying to focus on behavioral ethics to any significant degree.

My comment, however, was specifically in response to the claim that “religion does not stop anyone from learning about other ideas”. My comment regarded your reference to religion in general (not religious schools specifically) not stopping anyone from learning about other ideas. My response was informed by my anecdotal experiences. Although I too was born into the Catholic religion and all my relatives are Catholic or lapsed Catholic, my wife’s family has Evangelical non-denominational Church goers, Southern Baptist, and Evangelical Presbyterians. In addition, my children have had neighborhood friends whose families are Evangelical or born again Christians and attend the local Christian Academy School. Also, my children have attended a Christian summer camp that was on the same lake as their grandparents lake house. It is these experiences that inform me that there are churches and religious environments that discourage exploring other beliefs outside those of the church and that work hard to provide environments that conform to the prescribed belief set and reduce exposure to conflicting belief sets.

And yet they can do nothing to actually stop anyone from doing so.

Tom Petty wrote a line in a song that says "everybody's got to fight to be free" and those words are very true, especially for our minds. And I would add that we can never really truly be free. It's just not possible. No matter what ideology or culture we find ourselves living in, if we want to explore other ideas and ways of living, we're probably going to have to fight the status quo for it. It's always going to be easier to go along and get along. And that will be the choice a lot of folks prefer to make. And that is their right. There isn't going to be any society or culture in which this isn't so.

I could not agree more. I am all for comparative religion being taught in an objectively neutral manner as well as Ethics to include non-religious based ethical systems.

So, in your opinion, every Muslim child has freely chosen to be Muslim after a careful consideration of all the options? Is this also true for the Christian in their many variant forms, the Jewish child, the Buddhist child?

Dependents are not relevant to this discussion. They will choose when they become able. Until then their guardians will choose for them.

Let’s take religion out of it. Different cultures have different customs and taboos. In the Arab world it is offensive to show another the soles of your feet or shoes. If offense is truly felt by an Arab when presented with the sole of another's foot, is the understanding that the sole of the foot is inherently offensive something that every Arab independently concludes? Did they make a conscious choice in the matter?

Does every Arab actually feel this way, or think like this? I doubt it very much. It's a socially accepted convention. All societies develop them. Even if these sorts of things were enforced by law, as they sometimes are, it till can't make anyone believe in them.

I wonder if you underestimate the power of socialization and indoctrination.

I think you're way over-estimating it. There's no mind control going on. Mostly it's just stupidity by default. A lot of people just go along to get along and other people see that and take advantage of it. It happens in religion, but it happens in politics, in business, and in every other human endeavor. It's a problem that humanity needs to address, and soon. because it's reaching the point of serious danger.

What people believe affects the way they act and interact with others. I think we both agree on this. I think we also both agree that an ethical system works best when there is buy-in by all involved parties. There are a wide variety of belief sets out in the world and I think we both agree that belief sets can and should be evaluated both on how they affect individuals as well as how belief sets can affect society as a whole.

If we leave religion again for a moment and imagine a private school that was organized around a belief in a neo-nazi ideology, one in which neo-nazi ideology was referenced or emphasized in glowing, praising terms throughout the curriculum, do you think that such an educational environment can have a long lasting or permanent effect on some percentage of graduates throughout their adulthood, despite being exposed to other beliefs after schooling? I am *NOT* equating religion to neo-nazism, by the way. It is simply a stark example of a belief set I assume you would not agree with but may agree others might be conditioned to believe.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way around. Such an institution would only occur in a society that ALREADY has bought into those fascist ideals. Or at least a significant enough number of the people have that they can support such an institution and get away with operating it among those that have not bought into it.

Fascism is a very real, functional, and possible social ideology. The people that believe in it have as much right to do so as anyone else has to believe in whatever ideology they believe in. And when those ideologies clash, they clash. It's the nature of the ideological beast.

If it is your position that such a schooling environment would have no effect on the students in terms of their openness to entertaining conflicting belief sets as adults, I see that position as wholly unrealistic. This would be compounded if such schools were dominant in the culture.

You keep focusing on kids. This isn't about kids. it's about adults deciding how they are going to live their lives, and why they're going to do it that way. And what to do when they disagree,

I’m sorry you find me to be a bigot.

That's not what I posted. I posted "if" ...

If we can critically evaluate the value, to individuals and society, of some belief sets, we should be able to think critically and evaluate all belief sets.

Some, I suppose, do not lend themselves to that idiom (valuation). But few humans would be able to accommodate them, I think.

That is what I am advocating. No belief set that impacts the entire society should receive special exemption status.

And for the most party they don't. Not really. But it is why I think it's a mistake for us to leave our schools avoiding comparative religion, comparative philosophy, comparative economics, and comparative politics. At least a general overview, and two basic methods for evaluating them: individual and collective ethics, should be standard curriculum. We need good citizens and good humans, first, then good 'workers'.

If what and the way we teach our children has lasting effects for them and society as a whole, then it behooves us to continually assess what and how we are teaching them.

I agree. But THEY are not going to be the ones to make those decisions. We are. And we are going to make those decisions based on the ideologies that we have chosen to live by, already. If those ideologies cannot tolerate any others, then our choices will become dogmatic, and authoritarian. As some communities choices are. And that is their right.

If your concern is the moral and ethical health of society, then let’s discuss that on an even playing field without giving preference to any one belief set or category of belief set. We should be able to think critically about all of it.

That's just not how it works. Ideologies and the people that hold them compete to dominate. Not to be "the best one". They all think they're the best one, and they all are ... according to their own built in criteria.

 

[PureX]

OK, this is your opinion, where is the logical explalantion?

*chuckling* Why is "no objective evidence" sufficient exlanation for you, but just an insufficient opinion for mikkel_the_dane?

 

[Bird123]

Thanks, Bird123, at the age of 80+, I am what I must be.

Learning is a lifetime experience. Keep your view open to all that's around you. Sometimes one can see more at a greater age when one is ready to see it.

There are also troubled souls around us all. Even on my deathbed, I will be shining a light in someone's eyes, opening their view to all the possibilities.

Will is 90% of everything. We can be our own worst enemies placing walls and limits on ourselves. One's transportation, our bodies, can be old and worn out, however we are all eternally youthful. Our capabilities are limitless to touch all around us Spiritually. I know you are wise enough to know Spiritually has never ever been the same as religiously.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Notice you offer none of this "evidence". If it was so obvious you would be listing it. And it would be part of science.

All you do is bluff.

No. Are you really oblivious of what you write?

If there are facts about a God it will be readily available to any mind. You write words and not a single one that explains eveidence. It's almost as if you know you have none.

Oh the irony. More accusations, no evidence.

Bluff? To what end? I make no demands on you or anyone. I have pointed you in the direction by which you can Discover for yourself yet you sit on your hands. Why? You do not seek. Has what I have said really gone over your head? Do you expect me to do all the work for you?

Wisdom is acquired on the struggle to acquire knowledge. You are still working on beliefs to accept or reject. God's world, system, and reality are far different than the belief system you hold so tightly upon.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? Wasn't it said that if God wanted mankind to fly, God would have given mankind wings? Is this the narrow view you hold onto?

God hides nothing. The knowledge exists around us all ,waiting to be Discovered. Yes, just with air flight, God wants us to Discover it all. God just isn't going to do it all for us. On the other hand, one must first seek.

Perhaps, it is a good time to Discover yourself. Let your journey start by Discovering who you really are and what is it that you really seek and why.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

You really have not. Please point it out again.
I suspect the evidence you accuse us of ignoring is evidence we're quite familiar with, but have dismissed as flawed.

Look around at all the complex systems working so perfectly all around you. There are countless systems including the human body, DNA and so much more intelligence mankind has not even seen yet.

If you say random chance, statistically, the universe is not old enough for so many complex systems to form randomly. Mankind is at it's infancy as far as knowledge goes.

Logic that will prove to be true: If all the physics of this world add up perfectly, so must the people factor. The people factor is much more complicated because it carries so many more variables. It adds up perfectly too because everything about God, God's world and systems add up perfectly. The dynamics of it all are amazing.

Can you really not see Intelligence around you?

There is so very much to Discover and the only limits are those we place on ourselves.

The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I cry that. I work on mine every day. My journey continues for there is always more to Discover.

I kindly point!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

I seek practical, utilitarian things. The laws and constants of the universe have already been worked out pretty well. I don't actively seek what I have no reason to believe exist.

I look around and see evidence of the workings of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, &c. I see natural, unplanned, unintentional events unfolding. I see function, but not design or purpose, except when related to actual, sentient beings like myself or my cat.

I see complex, functioning, interactive systems, which work despite the poor "design" they exhibit when analyzed. Randomness and chaos underlie the physics that order the universe.

Can you really see no purpose? You build an energy system that runs the energy needs to an entire world for billions of years. Is there really no purpose?

Figure out how it all fits together including the people factor and you will understand God.

Widen your view to what Is and not what you want it to be. Do not base your information about God on the beliefs of others. Discover for yourself.


That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[MikeF]

Why is that an issue for you? Since when is ANY institutional effort for the betterment of mankind 100% effective? Many Catholic schools are better than many public schools. So why aren't you decrying the imperfections of the public school system?

Also, Catholicism represents a pretty big slice of Christianity and of religion in general. Yet you want to ignore all the good religion does in the world and focus solely it's failures. Even while there are no other organized institutions out there that are even trying to focus on behavioral ethics to any significant degree.

And yet they can do nothing to actually stop anyone from doing so.

Tom Petty wrote a line in a song that says "everybody's got to fight to be free" and those words are very true, especially for our minds. And I would add that we can never really truly be free. It's just not possible. No matter what ideology or culture we find ourselves living in, if we want to explore other ideas and ways of living, we're probably going to have to fight the status quo for it. It's always going to be easier to go along and get along. And that will be the choice a lot of folks prefer to make. And that is their right. There isn't going to be any society or culture in which this isn't so.

Dependents are not relevant to this discussion. They will choose when they become able. Until then their guardians will choose for them.

Does every Arab actually feel this way, or think like this? I doubt it very much. It's a socially accepted convention. All societies develop them. Even if these sorts of things were enforced by law, as they sometimes are, it till can't make anyone believe in them.

I think you're way over-estimating it. There's no mind control going on. Mostly it's just stupidity by default. A lot of people just go along to get along and other people see that and take advantage of it. It happens in religion, but it happens in politics, in business, and in every other human endeavor. It's a problem that humanity needs to address, and soon. because it's reaching the point of serious danger.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way around. Such an institution would only occur in a society that ALREADY has bought into those fascist ideals. Or at least a significant enough number of the people have that they can support such an institution and get away with operating it among those that have not bought into it.

Fascism is a very real, functional, and possible social ideology. The people that believe in it have as much right to do so as anyone else has to believe in whatever ideology they believe in. And when those ideologies clash, they clash. It's the nature of the ideological beast.

You keep focusing on kids. This isn't about kids. it's about adults deciding how they are going to live their lives, and why they're going to do it that way. And what to do when they disagree,


Some, I suppose, do not lend themselves to that idiom (valuation). But few humans would be able to accommodate them, I think.

And for the most party they don't. Not really. But it is why I think it's a mistake for us to leave our schools avoiding comparative religion, comparative philosophy, comparative economics, and comparative politics. At least a general overview, and two basic methods for evaluating them: individual and collective ethics, should be standard curriculum. We need good citizens and good humans, first, then good 'workers'.

I agree. But THEY are not going to be the ones to make those decisions. We are. And we are going to make those decisions based on the ideologies that we have chosen to live by, already. If those ideologies cannot tolerate any others, then our choices will become dogmatic, and authoritarian. As some communities choices are. And that is their right.

That's just not how it works. Ideologies and the people that hold them compete to dominate. Not to be "the best one". They all think they're the best one, and they all are ... according to their own built in criteria.

All right my friend. I think I’ve made valid points, you disagree. We started with you stating that the placebo myth of religion had value because it met a need. I have countered that the placebo myth is filling a need of its own creation. Your argument seems really to be a fear that without the religion myth we lose our ethical system. I do not see that as being the case simply on the grounds that there are a lot of ethical people who do not share in the myths and there are lots that do believe in the myths that are plenty unethical and lack consistent moral behavior.

Can we skip the myth and still have our ethics? I say yes.

Due to the nature of socialization, I fully admit there is no way to make any type of wholesale change. Myth will be with us a while longer. I am confident that its role in society will continue to diminish as it continually has, and future generations will be happily ethical despite being free from myth. Ethical systems that are acknowledged as derived from us and to which we must hold ourselves accountable, no longer bound to the irrationality born from our ancient ignorance.

As to you calling me a bigot:

That's not what I posted. I posted "if" …

You actually said:

Your bigotry against religion as 'the big cultural boogeyman' is blinding you to the reality of it.

As to the reality of religion, I think I recognize the good and the bad. The point is, can we think critically about our belief myths and evolve into something better. I think we can.

 

[F1fan]

Bluff? To what end? I make no demands on you or anyone.

You make claims that you can't back up with any evidence and a cohrent explanation. So you either don't understand how to debate, or are arrogant, or delusional, or just so highly absorbed in your dogma that you aren't able to understand reality, or any mix of these options. As it is you hold beliefs that are religious and by definition are not factual. You seem totally obilvious that your hold beliefs that are not based in fact, and you are insulting to me and others for "not getting" what you think you know.

I have pointed you in the direction by which you can Discover for yourself yet you sit on your hands. Why? You do not seek. Has what I have said really gone over your head? Do you expect me to do all the work for you?

Here is an example. You are pointing to nothing as a direction except your beliefs, and these are beliefs that are not factual. Yet you phrase these statements as if you are enlightened and I am stupid. In debate if someone else's position is wrong you offer them factual evidence and a coherent explanation. You don't do this.

Wisdom is acquired on the struggle to acquire knowledge. You are still working on beliefs to accept or reject. God's world, system, and reality are far different than the belief system you hold so tightly upon.

You speak of wisdom and then refer to a God, which isn't known to exist. Irony.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? Wasn't it said that if God wanted mankind to fly, God would have given mankind wings? Is this the narrow view you hold onto?

Da Vinci had some ideas well before the natural ability of flight was known by science. If a God exists and didn't want man to fly, well man gave God the middle finger when the Wright Brothers flew. And what did this God do? Nothing. Almost as if it doesn't exist.

God hides nothing.

Except itself, apparently.

The knowledge exists around us all ,waiting to be Discovered. Yes, just with air flight, God wants us to Discover it all. God just isn't going to do it all for us. On the other hand, one must first seek.

Once again you fail to list all this evidence that ios all around us. If it is all around us how does it slip your mind to list any of them?

Perhaps, it is a good time to Discover yourself. Let your journey start by Discovering who you really are and what is it that you really seek and why.

I am an atheist because I have discovered what is true about nature myself. No evidence of any of the many gods, so no reason to decide one does.

 

[F1fan]

Look around at all the complex systems working so perfectly all around you. There are countless systems including the human body, DNA and so much more intelligence mankind has not even seen yet.

If you say random chance, statistically, the universe is not old enough for so many complex systems to form randomly. Mankind is at it's infancy as far as knowledge goes.

OK, explain cancers, especially in children. God's design?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The blame game does not encourage this to happen.

You mean - 'do not call a spade a spade'?

 

[F1fan]

Evidence as per the standard of being objective can't also not be objective as subjective.
That is a contradiction. Something can't at the same time and place be and not be in the same sense. In this case objective and not objective.

More confusing language. Your forte.

So that religion is inferior to logic, is as a claim either objective or not and that ties into evidence.

You don't see juries screened for who are the most religious.