Kids are doing good in maths and science because they were told to believe that Jesus the son of god is real. 
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The point of religion is it gives people what they crave the most: immortality for themselves and their loved ones. No one want's to die, we are all afraid of it, so religion gives the "get out of jail free" card; all the rest is just empty talk. The answer to the thread is fear of death. People are so afraid of death and being not that important that they will accept any and all nonsense associated with a belief system.
Ironically enough religious people are the first to say they don't want to live forever (because they think they will already )
Ironically enough religious people are the first to say they don't want to live forever (because they think they will already
)
It's to do with the 'indoctrination' of children - something which, from the evidence of the thread, seems to concern you a great deal.
The proof is in the pudding, and the ethos of the school contributes to the pudding.
Naturally.
No. It would just help if you actually had some experience of what you're talking about.
And I've never met a bible thumping catholic.
And just to clear things up…
Indoctrination - noun - the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
Faith - noun - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Indoctrination - noun - the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
Faith - noun - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
The point of religion is it gives people what they crave the most: immortality for themselves and their loved ones. No one want's to die, we are all afraid of it, so religion gives the "get out of jail free" card; all the rest is just empty talk. The answer to the thread is fear of death. People are so afraid of death and being not that important that they will accept any and all nonsense associated with a belief system.
Ironically enough religious people are the first to say they don't want to live forever (because they think they will already
You make a good point and it's come in discussions I've had with people when I've mentioned I was an atheist. If you did believe in an afterlife, to turn away from faith and accept that you'll never see your loved ones again must be a difficult thing to do. It's not something I've had to do personally as I've never believed in an afterlife.
It's to do with the 'indoctrination' of children - something which, from the evidence of the thread, seems to concern you a great deal.
The proof is in the pudding, and the ethos of the school contributes to the pudding.
Naturally.
No. It would just help if you actually had some experience of what you're talking about.
And I've never met a bible thumping catholic.
You can't seriously be claiming Religions, religious schools and religious parents don't indoctrinate kids?
Scientific theories are testable and able to make correct predictions. Both Newtonian and Einstein theories can do that, although with limitations. Both are used to this day. Religion can't do that.
Kids are doing good in maths and science because they were told to believe that Jesus the son of god is real.
Yes. It is also why it is impossible to have discussions about religion on a fundamental level. Both religious people and atheist tend to lose themselves in discussions on details: like the Universe, Evolution, etc. None of that actually matters to most believers because they don't address the fundamental aspect of religion: immortality vs mortality.
I've had on a personal level this type of discussion for years and years, even with then being close friends. The exitance of god this and Universe that. It is all irrelevant because as a non religious person you are essentially telling the other that death is final, for them, for their parents, their children, etc. People that are not accepting with the finality of death will never accept any logical argument; to get immortality do I have to believe in a 6000 yo Earth? Sure. In a prophet that went to heaven on a winged horse? Sure. Anything just so I can keep my fear of death away.
Religion is here to stay for as long as people are incapable with accepting their place in reality. So probably for a very long time.
Last edited:
Okay. I don’t think kids should be indoctrinated in nationalism either and I don’t do it in my classroom.
Naturally.
Gotcha. As I said, I guess the whole process of confirmation in Catholicism is just something I made up.
I'm sure some or many do. The use of the word indoctrination however carries a certain malevolent or malignant tone, where ideas and beliefs have been repeated relentlessly until the person on the receiving end accepts it without criticism or question.
Carolina Red for example, described himself a bible thumper in his younger days, which must've resulted from being brought up in a strict religious environment. I can sense the rebellion and disdain for it in his posts. For him this was indoctrination, and perhaps it's an apt description in his case (although as it turns out, the indoctrination wasn't ultimately successful).
But he then goes on to paint a picture of all other kinds of upbringings where religion and/or faith played a role, as resembling the same kind of indoctrination that he experienced. This is an obvious error on his part and indicative of his bias.
That's good to hear, and I'll leave the classroom bit alone.
There's definitely a link between the online commentator and these statistical clichés though.
Last edited:
All scientific theories?
String theory or multiverse theory are theories that are all shiny and bright but don't fit in with "science" as defined originally and only do so if you loosen what science is.
The problem I see is that religion and science don't really ask the same questions. Hence for me it isn't either/or.
Just in case there wasn't enough fuel on the fire, I'll give another brilliant example of the beauty of religions.
The numbers we, most of us, use today, are called what? Arab numerals. A large portion of the stars visible at night have names given by? The Arabs. The arguably most fundamental and important study of science begins with studying Math. Algebra, an Arab invention(made in a time that people from anywhere were encouraged to come and discuss ideas).
What we call today the "Muslim" world used to be an epicenter of thought, of knowledge. After that point, the writing of "how to be a good Muslim"(I will not go in to names of imbeciles called clerics) came to pass and from there, nothing of note ever came from hundreds of millions of people. The downfall of the people of Arabia (plus the zones they had influence in, more and more as time went by) is one of the most incredible and saddest decadence of human though.
The numbers we, most of us, use today, are called what? Arab numerals. A large portion of the stars visible at night have names given by? The Arabs. The arguably most fundamental and important study of science begins with studying Math. Algebra, an Arab invention(made in a time that people from anywhere were encouraged to come and discuss ideas).
What we call today the "Muslim" world used to be an epicenter of thought, of knowledge. After that point, the writing of "how to be a good Muslim"(I will not go in to names of imbeciles called clerics) came to pass and from there, nothing of note ever came from hundreds of millions of people. The downfall of the people of Arabia (plus the zones they had influence in, more and more as time went by) is one of the most incredible and saddest decadence of human though.
what's your cutoff point? because there were great scientific advances well after Islam took hold in the Middle East. works on optics and all kinds of other stuff that was centuries ahead of Europe at that time. I don't disagree with some of your argument, but you could use the same western-based or biased lens to write off countries like China which led the way in the Ancient World and then had a lessening of output, from the western point of view at least.
A while back I made similar points. Although I focussed on all religious "scientists" rather than just the Muslim ones.
I find it interesting generally to try and find the origins of things, you know thoughts, sayings etc. And although some can have differing origins, in the main you can pinpoint the specifics.
When it comes to education it's amazing the role religion has historically.
It's also amazing, well to me anyway, that our starting points today are drilled in us that we don't consider looking further back.
No, that would be stupid.
I think so, I think all physics scientific theories have to have prediction capabilities (or at least, the Newtonian gravity and Einstein general relativity theory). And therefore, imo, neither string theory nor multiverse can be considered as such.
I went to a Catholic school. You say prayers a few times a day. The teacher taught us about Catholicism and had us learn prayers by rote. The priest would come in at various times of the year (Lent, Easter, Advent etc) and talked us about Jesus and told us how to behave and how to be good christians and follow the word God. We were told about the mysteries of Faith. I didn't really believe most of it but, as I said in a previous post, I did start to go along with it for a while when I was somewhere around 11 and making my confirmation. It was presented as fact and I certainly wasn't taught to view the gospels with a critical eye. This started when I was four but for my classmates they had been attending mass each week pretty much since they were born. The word may have acquired a negative connatation and Religions tend not to use it anymore but it is indoctrination. I can't think of any other word to describe it.
We can agree on that. It's very stupid.
Generally I see this, indoctrination, used a lot for religion but not other fields.
I always found education, only using that as I know you're in education, as more of an indoctrinating tool than religion and I didn't attend religious schools.
So maybe "science" as a catch all term isn't the way to go?
Neither is "religion" for me.
Wait, are you claiming that the reason the vast, vast majority growing up in Muslim families in Muslim areas become Muslim and those from Christian families and areas become Christian etc is NOT because of indoctrination?
I went to a catholic primary and secondary school. I can't really recall much of the former but with the latter we had mass on a first Friday and on holy days, which we liked because you didn't haven't to go to any classes when they were on.
Guidance, ethos and culture would be other descriptors.
I think there is something valid to the view that the hard atheist or "anti-theist" relies on faith. Only applicable to the hard atheists that claim "there is no god." The faith of someone like a Hitchens comes in because they believe our level of science as a species is sufficient to reliably make such claims. Personally, I think our level of science c.2022 is still at such a larval level, that some phenomena we cannot sufficiently make such predictions.
I've also encountered some atheistic types that overly rely on laboratory conditions when asserting what is possible (more related to certain phenomena here than belief in higher intelligence than humans). There are certain properties and phenomena that are emergent and can't arise under controlled conditions so an inability to reproduce in a laboratory condition doesn't disprove its existence (hence why some things require field studies).
For me personally, I really hate the Fermi Paradox and find it massively flawed and victim to the same problem of faith in our current level of scientific understanding. I don't think it's a paradox at all, and there are several, more logical explanations (solutions) for why we, again at only a larval level of scientific understanding in the grand scheme of the universe, have not detected hard evidence of higher forms of "alien" intelligence.
I've also encountered some atheistic types that overly rely on laboratory conditions when asserting what is possible (more related to certain phenomena here than belief in higher intelligence than humans). There are certain properties and phenomena that are emergent and can't arise under controlled conditions so an inability to reproduce in a laboratory condition doesn't disprove its existence (hence why some things require field studies).
For me personally, I really hate the Fermi Paradox and find it massively flawed and victim to the same problem of faith in our current level of scientific understanding. I don't think it's a paradox at all, and there are several, more logical explanations (solutions) for why we, again at only a larval level of scientific understanding in the grand scheme of the universe, have not detected hard evidence of higher forms of "alien" intelligence.
It's because of culture and tradition, which some are labelling as indoctrination.
I get your point, but both String and Multiverse Theories (and especially the former) make predictions. We simply can't currently experimentally test them (yet?). Whilst that sounds like pedantry, I think it's an important distinction: these hypotheses are based on actual science and observations and are yet to be tested. They may be false but theoretical physics (see Einstein's general relativity tests) is always pushing the boundaries and initially unproven.
Would you say the same about Hitchens' claims that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Or goblins? I think this is where the disconnect is. I consider myself an atheist, but obviously I can't 100% for certain know that God doesn't exist, because that's literally impossible. But I'm about as sure of it as I am that the other two I mentioned don't exist. I've seen no more proof for any of them than the other. That's not faith, IMO.
I agree about the Fermi Paradox. It's interesting as hell, but it's just guesswork.
Well your experience is clearly different to mine but it doesn't mean it doesn't go on. What I experienced in 1980s Ireland was indoctrination. There was very little room for questions.
I don't really understand what you mean by that. What do you think is the correct term for science?
True.
I attended primary school in the North and then Dublin from the mid to late 80s & early 90s, then back up North for secondary school after. I don't recall there ever being a big issue about it.
That's because there's a distinction being made, specifically that culture and tradition don't require definitive statements about that which is true about the nature of reality to be made.
Clearly you don't agree, but the claim that children being taught that a religion's perspective is a fact, especially at an age where the mind is forming and highly susceptible to instruction from adults is a form of indoctrination. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable description.
That's interesting. Were you a Christian who believed in God at the time? If so, it was probably just normal to you as it was to everyone else in my class. As an atheist whose parent's didn't believe in God and had never taken me to Church apart from Weddings, Funerals and Christenings, I saw it very differently.
I don't want to turn the thread in to specific religious individuals. The cutoff point, is the one I've written; a cleric or whatever the feck he is seen today that killed free thought in the then Islam tradition (it was Islam during their great scientific progress, Mahomed was not the one that killed them as free thinkers, the ones after did; Mohamed probably wanted good things for the people along with delusions of matching Alexander the Great, also many women including children).
The same things happened in Europe too. There is a reason why we call the church dominated era as the "dark ages". Free thought was heresy, many people died and it took a long and very hard fought "war" for science to break free from the persecution of religion. We can complain all we want about Islam but Christianity was the one that gave us the "moral" values of the inquisition. If that is too far apart, then "we" have more. Hate the gays, subjugate women because they are inferior, suppress science if it contradicts dogma; these are all Christian "morals" propagated today.
My look down on religion is global.
No, because the claims are not equivalent. Something like the tooth fairy is a very specific metaphysical claim. The concept of a potential "god" has many different variations that can't all be collapsed into a single claim and all considered equivalent.
For instance, just the Dawkins quote earlier about a potential highly advanced form of life that created humans would fall under a variation of "god" and be very different than the specific Christian version that claims the universe is 6000 years old, etc.
For me, I think there are absolutely more advanced forms of intelligence in the universe (how advanced is variable), and I find that view more rational than the form of scientific reductionism that relies on the faith of our current level of scientific understanding.
I'm not sure on the specific date or range you mean for the clerical class and the opposition to freedom of thought but I'm talking about this tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age. The end-date given is the Mongol advance and invasion.
The dark age is largely misunderstood i think. most of the free thinkers of that period were religious scholars and monks. from Augustine to Aquinas. it was the Viking advance subsequent to the fall of Rome, in the centuries after, that most cite as the reason for the "dark ages". not that the church wasn't repressive. it was.
i mean the Islamic Golden Age occurs throughout a large part of the "dark ages". most modern scholars rightly point out that the term is controversial at best.
Last edited:
You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about and are making all of this up.