On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
What do you mean by parents forcing their kids into having a religious belief? Children are naturally influenced by their parents and to a greater extent by their social environment as a whole. Transmitting religious beliefs is much like the transmission of social values and political opinions, it isn't forced.
A lot of it is forced in America, but that's also how social values and political opinions are often transmitted as well (although it's probably easier to impress religious values at a younger age than it is partisan politics). The media and communities are really good at pushing religious stigmas and stereotypes (e.g., Fox News's War on Christmas/ Christians, "All Muslims are evil", "All atheists are bad/ immoral people", etc.). Plus, from birth, babies are looked at as being Christian/ religious babies due to their procedures/ sacraments (e.g., Baptism), despite babies not yet having the cognitive ability to consider religious beliefs and voluntarily choose what religion to believe in. (A baby isn't born a Christian baby; it is a baby with Christian parents. However, we grow up assuming the label our parents give us.) They're born into it- much like social/ political values eventually- but a lot of that is forced, in my opinion. (I don't think transmission and force are mutually exclusive entities, but perhaps that's just a semantics argument?)
But religious beliefs are different from religion, aren't they? When a sacrament is done on a child just after he's born, no one is forcing religious beliefs on him ; however they are forcing a religion on him. But then the extent to which the child will have actual religious beliefs in the future is determined by the influence of his family and his environment, it won't be forced upon him. Plenty of people call themselves "religious" and go to the mass and whatnot (because it is useful for their public relationships and other goals) but have little to no religious beliefs. And you could probably see that influence from the media and communities is a form of forcing people, but honestly it's just the way a society works. Influence is everywhere.
On May 24 2015 21:22 oGoZenob wrote: the whole "atheism" word is a strange thing. I mean, it's weird to classify a group of people by the thing they don't believe in or don't do. I don't play soccer, and we don't gather around, us non-soccer players, telling about how much we don't play soccer
It probably seems like a strange word because in France we have no religious statistics, but when you have these, the State has to have a word to classify people who are neither Christians nor Muslims nor Jewish nor Buddhist etc. And it's not that weird to classify a group of people by something they don't do. I mean we do classify unemployed people, yet "unemployed" is just like "atheism" defined by not doing something (as shown by "un" and "a").
The truth of the matter is that people who care about their label will be more vocal about it. And when people with different labels start being vocal about side by side with each other--things get tense. It doesn't really matter which label you have (Christian, Atheist, etc...) because if you actually care what it is you are, then anything that contradicts, minimizes, or takes stances against it are your enemy.
And if you really didn't care what your label is, what others thought of your label, or what you think of other people's label--then you don't really care and it doesn't matter either or.
Someone who doesn't care about God but has gone to church with his family and friends every sunday since he was a kid can still not care about god since whether he goes to church or not does not affect his identity. On the other hand, someone can be deeply deeply christian, so much so that every church he goes to seems like a bunch of heretics and he ends up never going to church again in his entire life because every church he sees or hears about isn't christian enough for him.
When your label is important to you, stances will be made and lines drawn. And it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a christian. If you don't care and the stuff is just "the things I've done my whole life" then it doesn't matter to you.
On May 24 2015 21:49 helpman176 wrote: I hate people that don't play soccer. They feel very entitled and think that they can just not play soccer whenever they want. If you question them why they don't play soccer, they give you some bullshit excuses like "I don't know man, soccer is not for me!". The world would be a better place without people that don't play soccer!
On May 24 2015 21:49 helpman176 wrote: I hate people that don't play soccer. They feel very entitled and think that they can just not play soccer whenever they want. If you question them why they don't play soccer, they give you some bullshit excuses like "I don't know man, soccer is not for me!". The world would be a better place without people that don't play soccer!
this is pretty much my favorite post in here so far
On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
What do you mean by parents forcing their kids into having a religious belief? Children are naturally influenced by their parents and to a greater extent by their social environment as a whole. Transmitting religious beliefs is much like the transmission of social values and political opinions, it isn't forced.
A lot of it is forced in America, but that's also how social values and political opinions are often transmitted as well (although it's probably easier to impress religious values at a younger age than it is partisan politics). The media and communities are really good at pushing religious stigmas and stereotypes (e.g., Fox News's War on Christmas/ Christians, "All Muslims are evil", "All atheists are bad/ immoral people", etc.). Plus, from birth, babies are looked at as being Christian/ religious babies due to their procedures/ sacraments (e.g., Baptism), despite babies not yet having the cognitive ability to consider religious beliefs and voluntarily choose what religion to believe in. (A baby isn't born a Christian baby; it is a baby with Christian parents. However, we grow up assuming the label our parents give us.) They're born into it- much like social/ political values eventually- but a lot of that is forced, in my opinion. (I don't think transmission and force are mutually exclusive entities, but perhaps that's just a semantics argument?)
But religious beliefs are different from religion, aren't they? When a sacrament is done on a child just after he's born, no one is forcing religious beliefs on him ; however they are forcing a religion on him. But then the extent to which the child will have actual religious beliefs in the future is determined by the influence of his family and his environment, it won't be forced upon him. Plenty of people call themselves "religious" and go to the mass and whatnot (because it is useful for their public relationships and other goals) but have little to no religious beliefs. And you could probably see that influence from the media and communities is a form of forcing people, but honestly it's just the way a society works. Influence is everywhere.
Fair enough... I don't really see the distinction between transmission and force though, unless the latter is literally under duress (e.g., A parent telling a child that gay marriage is wrong because God says so (influence) vs. A parent telling a child that she will disown him if he doesn't openly advertise the idea that gay marriage is wrong because God says so (force)). I think in most practical situations, influence is semantically more accurate; that being said, I think fruity. meant that as opposed to literal force (at least, that's how I interpreted the question).
If we're really just disagreeing on semantics, then I think we are in agreement that parents and society heavily influence the religious upbringing of a child.
Which of these groups have more people getting killed for having their beliefs?
Theists Atheists
Now, ask yourself, which one do you think suffers more for having their belief?
I would answer Theists in both questions.
And by other theists.
I don't know how that is relevant?
For context, here's the original question.
On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
Where the poster implies that religious beliefs are being forced on people. But the truth is that more often than not, having religious beliefs is more likely to get you killed than not having religious beliefs--the opposite of what he was imagining.
On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
Where the poster implies that religious beliefs are being forced on people. But the truth is that more often than not, having religious beliefs is more likely to get you killed than not having religious beliefs--the opposite of what he was imagining.
I think it's relevant because having religious beliefs makes you more likely to be killed and makes you more likely to kill people (assuming all this is actually causal to begin with and not just correlational), so it's bad on both ends. fruity.'s original question didn't mention anything about killing or being killed, so I was just trying to balance out the independent point you were responding with. I didn't particularly understand the relevance your original reply had to the question.
Which of these groups have more people getting killed for having their beliefs?
Theists Atheists
Now, ask yourself, which one do you think suffers more for having their belief?
I would answer Theists in both questions.
And by other theists.
I don't know how that is relevant?
For context, here's the original question.
On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
Where the poster implies that religious beliefs are being forced on people. But the truth is that more often than not, having religious beliefs is more likely to get you killed than not having religious beliefs--the opposite of what he was imagining.
I think it's relevant because having religious beliefs makes you more likely to be killed and makes you more likely to kill people (assuming all this is actually causal to begin with and not just correlational), so it's bad on both ends. fruity.'s original question didn't mention anything about killing or being killed, so I was just trying to balance out the independent point you were responding with. I didn't particularly understand the relevance your original reply had to the question.
Because you're equating discomfort from a social group passing down cultural practices (like religion) to being forced into a belief system when most religious people in the world follow that way of life despite literal threats to their life.
Doesn't matter if its Judaism in Israel, or Copticism in Egypt, or Islam in whatever country the US decides to invade. The idea that the only reason "religiosity" continues is because its easier on people is only true in rich countries with no strife--otherwise the opposite is true where people that don't practice anything are much more likely to be ignored than the ones who practice a specific public ritual (like going to mosques that are continually bombed).
Its a dishonest dialogue to use phrases such as forced to try to imply that there is an overarching and malicious attempt to convert "non-religious children" into some hive mind. The truth is more complex and much more difficult to quantify than that.
Is any kind of external laptop cooler going to make up for the fact that the fan inside the computer broke and the damn thing overheats after playing any game for 15 minutes?
Which of these groups have more people getting killed for having their beliefs?
Theists Atheists
Now, ask yourself, which one do you think suffers more for having their belief?
I would answer Theists in both questions.
And by other theists.
I don't know how that is relevant?
For context, here's the original question.
On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
Where the poster implies that religious beliefs are being forced on people. But the truth is that more often than not, having religious beliefs is more likely to get you killed than not having religious beliefs--the opposite of what he was imagining.
I think it's relevant because having religious beliefs makes you more likely to be killed and makes you more likely to kill people (assuming all this is actually causal to begin with and not just correlational), so it's bad on both ends. fruity.'s original question didn't mention anything about killing or being killed, so I was just trying to balance out the independent point you were responding with. I didn't particularly understand the relevance your original reply had to the question.
Because you're equating discomfort from a social group passing down cultural practices (like religion) to being forced into a belief system when most religious people in the world follow that way of life despite literal threats to their life.
Doesn't matter if its Judaism in Israel, or Copticism in Egypt, or Islam in whatever country the US decides to invade. The idea that the only reason "religiosity" continues is because its easier on people is only true in rich countries with no strife--otherwise the opposite is true where people that don't practice anything are much more likely to be ignored than the ones who practice a specific public ritual (like going to mosques that are continually bombed).
Its a dishonest dialogue to use phrases such as forced to try to imply that there is an overarching and malicious attempt to convert "non-religious children" into some hive mind. The truth is more complex and much more difficult to quantify than that.
I don't think parents are pushing their religious beliefs on their children with the intent of being mean or cruel or spreading ignorance/ prejudice or trying to make their lives harder by needing to deal with persecution. Unfortunately, those are very real side effects though (as are solace, a sense of community, necessary defense mechanisms, and other positive attributes), and these religions are often just as frequently creating assailants as they are victims. It's an issue that many religious people are being persecuted *by other religious people for religious reasons*, and so we see a lot of friction coming from both the assailant and victim sides... They're both resolute in their religious beliefs, and the issue wouldn't exist if fundamentalist religious beliefs and actions were a thing of the past. I think a step in that direction would be having a community/ family that didn't push such extremist beliefs on the next generation.
On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
Where the poster implies that religious beliefs are being forced on people. But the truth is that more often than not, having religious beliefs is more likely to get you killed than not having religious beliefs--the opposite of what he was imagining.
Where does killing come in to it? And then I would like to ask who's doing the killing? To grossly generalise, which do you feel is more likely: atheists killing in the name of no God, or the religious killing due to having a different religion? Or even different sects within the same religion?
Perhaps a better wording would of been:
How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't pass on their beliefs to their kids? But then in a free world you have to point out that parents should be free to raise their children how they see fit. But what when that religious view is plainly wrong from a scientific standpoint?
For me a big problem with religion is that it doesn't move with the times, or progress society in anyway. It locks people in the past, locks them into a view of the world written thousands of years ago, a view unsurprisingly formed before there wasn't widespread scientific knowledge. And far worse than this - blatantly lies to defend certain aspects of their religion.
For example: The Catholics stance on condoms. Even today in the 21st century the Pope has gone on record saying that Catholics should not use condoms, they're evil. This is total bullshit, and the only person here who'd say that is not the case, would be either totally ignorant and uneducated or a troll. 30,000,000 have died from this sexually transmitted disease (HIV/AIDS), yet the church says don't use them?
How can anyone be ok with that?
The Church is quick to point out how they support and help those infected (and even research into AIDS treatment) That's great! But it's pissing in the wind when taken from the perspective of having 1.2 billion followers globally and taking an opposition to the use of condoms. It's totally counter intuitive, and when you move focus to the poorer countries of the world, with little to no health support or information services, add in religion - a one saying 'contraceptive use is evil' and boom, disaster. It's OK though! The church will help you on your deathbed!
The use of condoms to prevent disease is a controversial issue, with Catholic theologians arguing both sides. While a few dissenting theologians exist, the Church teaches that artificial contraception of all forms is intrinsically evil. (wikipedia)
And this I guess this is at the stem of my original question, wondering whether or not the archaic views that religions propagate (and hence propagated from parent to offspring) Is a good or bad thing.
On May 24 2015 17:31 helpman176 wrote: If you are really from Japan, do you have some insights in Japanese societal pressure? I have heard that it is a lot more pronounced than in Western societies. Things like 'Hikkomori' and 'Sōshoku danshi' seem to be trending for that reason.
It's staggering, truly staggering. People going to school to learn how to find a job - I guess in western societies this is nothing new - but the order of magnitude above and beyond what people in the west do to find work is something else. Being taught how to smile, wash your face, how to speak to people, how to walk, what to wear.. Post graduation training for job applicants which involves a week of boot-camp-esq tutorage before they're even offered a job. Those who do have jobs in some fields end up working 15 or even 18 hour days.. They have a word in japanese 'Karōshi' which literally means worked to death. There's even a forest in Japan where those who sadly can't cope look to end it all called Aokigahara. The pressure to conform, find a job, fit in, get married - it's unprecedented by any western standard. And when it comes to jobs, and the lack thereof, I find it totally amazing how these young guys and girls don't blame society (I guess there are some who would) But rather have an ethos of 'I must try harder'.
Here's a great piece on just this topic, by turns equally amazing and unbelievable, and makes me realise just how lucky we are in the west.
Which of these groups have more people getting killed for having their beliefs?
Theists Atheists
Now, ask yourself, which one do you think suffers more for having their belief?
I would answer Theists in both questions.
And by other theists.
I don't know how that is relevant?
For context, here's the original question.
On May 24 2015 09:44 fruity. wrote: How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't force their kids into having a religious belief?
Where the poster implies that religious beliefs are being forced on people. But the truth is that more often than not, having religious beliefs is more likely to get you killed than not having religious beliefs--the opposite of what he was imagining.
Where does killing come in to it? And then I would like to ask who's doing the killing? To grossly generalise, which do you feel is more likely: atheists killing in the name of no God, or the religious killing due to having a different religion? Or even different sects within the same religion?
Perhaps a better wording would of been:
How much religion would there be in the world, if parents didn't pass on their beliefs to their kids? But then in a free world you have to point out that parents should be free to raise their children how they see fit. But what when that religious view is plainly wrong from a scientific standpoint?
For me a big problem with religion is that it doesn't move with the times, or progress society in anyway. It locks people in the past, locks them into a view of the world written thousands of years ago, a view unsurprisingly formed before there wasn't widespread scientific knowledge. And far worse than this - blatantly lies to defend certain aspects of their religion.
For example: The Catholics stance on condoms. Even today in the 21st century the Pope has gone on record saying that Catholics should not use condoms, they're evil. This is total bullshit, and the only person here who'd say that is not the case, would be either totally ignorant and uneducated or a troll. 30,000,000 have died from this sexually transmitted disease (HIV/AIDS), yet the church says don't use them?
How can anyone be ok with that?
The Church is quick to point out how they support and help those infected (and even research into AIDS treatment) That's great! But it's pissing in the wind when taken from the perspective of having 1.2 billion followers globally and taking an opposition to the use of condoms. It's totally counter intuitive, and when you move focus to the poorer countries of the world, with little to no health support or information services, add in religion - a one saying 'contraceptive use is evil' and boom, disaster. It's OK though! The church will help you on your deathbed!
The use of condoms to prevent disease is a controversial issue, with Catholic theologians arguing both sides. While a few dissenting theologians exist, the Church teaches that artificial contraception of all forms is intrinsically evil. (wikipedia)
And this I guess this is at the stem of my original question, wondering whether or not the archaic views that religions propagate (and hence propagated from parent to offspring) Is a good or bad thing.
Whether religious practices/views should be allowed, or whether children should be taught the teachings of their culture are two very different arguments. You can't cherry pick which parts of another person's culture is allowed or not allowed just because you disagree with it. It goes against everything that personal freedoms stand for. Countries that enforces cultural practices that said society sees as good and just have always lead to an unhappy populace and basic human rights being abolished in the name of social engineering whether its religious societies like IS or atheist societies like the Soviet Union. For the most part, whether people go to church or not is not what makes a society corrupt.
Large groups of people with power have a tendency to become corrupt--being religious is not why people do bad things for much the same reasons that being non-religious is not the reason why people do bad things. Removing religion will not stop wars, will not stop greed, will not stop class divide, xenophobia, etc... Whether different groups blame religious differences, cultural differences, racial differences, resource scarcity, personal history, etc... there will always be things that causes strife amongst tribes.
Here's what I think is very likely: people tend to feel oppressed when they see others doing things that they themselves won't do. In countries with more strife the pressures is violence and death. In countries where people are free to do what they want the perceived oppressive actions are knowing others live life differently than you. These feelings will not go away because its human nature to be less trusting of groups outside of the ones you have deemed okay.
For example:
If you believe strongly enough in atheism to have it be part of your identity. Then people who practice religious practices will make you feel uneasy even if those people will never affect you in any direct way. You will feel that there is this greater force they represent that is oppressing your way of life just because they exist. You believe things like that they are more violent, dumber, and less socially advanced than you. You say that they are a backwards people who are the cause of all the problems in the world just because they have different ideas and thoughts than you. Its the same kinds of thoughts overly zealous believers have of people outside their faith. Of racists have of other people. Of elites have of the lower class--and vice versa.
Which do you think is more true:
Humans can be both good or bad and it doesn't really matter what society they're in, all societies have those types of people in them.
OR
Humans are purely good and if it wasn't for the existence of religion we would all be living happy nirvana filled lives filled with happy and goody.
EPT
