Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[Mish]

This doesn't follow.

You are saying that the *default* for ppl who DON'T indoctrinate their children w/religion is negativity & a deep preoccupation that life is only for reproduction & we are only hunks of meat?

Indi, What an assumption to make

Where did I say that?

First of all, what I was saying all along. The default for people who are not indoctrinated in any way shape or form is not atheism or specific Religious myth. The default is some form of a personal supernatural theistic belief. If you indoctrinate children one way or the other, then they develope the views of that specific indoctrination.

Second, as far as atheism goes, doesn't it teach that we are hunks of meat with purpose for reproduction? Didn't you say it yourself?

Quote

Its the epitome of ego to need to think we have any more meaning to exist than to reproduce our genome.

[Mish]

Yes. And a lot of religious ppl also think its their right to deny health care like blood transfusions & to beat their children ('spare the rod, spoil the child').

Indi, who's generalizing now?

Do you know the percent of Religious people who actually do that Indi?

"This like me saying a lot of atheists don't care about human life because its just a walking sack of meat and want to make genetic experiments to produce a super human."

You yourself are making a sweeping generalization entirely misrepresantative of majority of Religious people. You are basically accusing a parent who tells his child about God of some sort of child abuse.

There are those who think its okay to force young girls to take a husband at 14. All under the 'protection' of religious belief.

Yeh and there are those who think its okay to build a super race and wipe out all inferiour races under protection of some Social Darwinist dogma. What's your point?

The sooner we eliminate the special privileges associated w/religion & subject them to the SAME rules and laws that other societal groups have to satisfy, the better off everyone will be.

You're making it sound like Religious people are some kind of a special group who are not subject to the same laws and rules as everyone else. If they are, please point me in the direction to apply to. Because I certainly don't get any special privilleges at the moment.

Esp 'children of religion', as Dawkins puts it. This isn't the same as taking away their belief, don't mistake me, I'm just saying that belief shouldn't confer any special privileges and it should be presented as a CHOICE for our youth. Not the default thru early programming.

I agree with you in some way, but when you say it shouldn't be default through early programming, do you mean that this choice should be abandoned to the Govenrment? As in, parents should be denied to teach their kids about Religion by law? Do you honestly believe the GOVERNMENT should interfere with how parents raise their children? That the government should decide who should teach their children what? You may not know what this leads to, but I do. And I'm telling you Indi, when the government gets its hand on indoctrination of children it doesn't look pretty.

[Mish]

Because, Mish, there actually ARE groups of invididuals, some very well connected & powerful, that actually DO actively disagree with well-estabished scientific fact. They are actually threatened by things like the theory of evolution. They actually produce textbooks and create entire institutes trying to convince the public that these well-understood scientific theories are wrong. And they do it w/o any proof or studies, they just claim its so. B/c the bible says so.

I understand what you are saying. And I disagree with that as well. Though, I did point out some modern myths in evolution and how these myths can be dangerous to culture, society, morality in general and even our laws. I can understand how some people are threatened by a vague notion of "Survival of the fittest" for example. This specific notion I think is misrepresentative of the theory of evolution itself, since there is proof that it's not necesarily the fittest but the most naturally adept or the most reproductive and replenishing that survive. Meaning that there are a lot of other mechnisms than human selfishness by which life evolves and survives. Even though this notion is misrepresentative it's still being taught under guise of "natural selection". Kids go to their classrooms to learn that life is all about being "the fittest and defeating competition in any way posible" and that the "ends justify the means". I can understand why some people disagree with that cultural effect and want to stop it in any way posible.

And the way they go about it is especially insidious. These groups attack scientific theories and, when they find a hole in the theory, they attempt to fill that hole w/belief. They say "see, there's a hole in the fossil record, so evolution MUST be wrong & that means God exists." Terrible logic, b/c of course, any rational person understands that, even IF the entire theory was wrong (and a missing part doesn't mean that, only a *conflicting* part would invalidate a theory), EVEN IF the scientific theory was wrong IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THAT GOD EXISTS. The invalidation of one theory doesn't make another possibility more likely w/o proof. Read Dawkins chapter on 'The Gap Argument' if you want this explained more eloquantly.

They want to find holes in logic so they can gain more followers. You must think it's a terrible crime from scientific perspective, but in the end of the day this is what some Religious people are interested in. However, the way I feel, there is obviously a human need for both Science and Religion. If both Scientists and Religious people could just find that balance and use Science for Science and Religion for Religion without crossing over it would be so much better for everyone.

But there are ppl who, b/c of their lack of training in understanding logic, who unfortunately actually believe this type of argument is actually valid. And they become convinced that its okay to allow things like ID to be an acceptable part of a school science curriculum.

It is absolutely CRUCIAL to those who would use these techniques that ppl are not trained to think critically. B/c once they are, these ppl will no longer be susceptible to this type of mental manipulation & they will actually have to start *proving* their assertions. Which leads them down the path we have discussed earlier, ad nauseum.

Think about it Mish.

I understand this concern as well. Though, there are people who actually want to believe and don't want to acknowledge the depressing "reality" provided by science. Come on, given a choice between "We are genetical zombies" and "We are souls, there's absolute good to strive to and we will live again" which one do you think most people will go for? I think even the most logically and critically thinking person out there would want to exercise some form of illusion in life just to make living life less depressing. And for me personally it is a depressing thought knowing that this is all there is to it. I don't think I would want to bring children into a world like that. Though looking at life through different filters I am more keen to. Imo, this is how evolution favours Religious people, they have more capacity to be motivated to reproduce because of their hopes and beliefs.

So I guess the question is, if someone wants to live a happier life and have hope who is anyone to tell them that they can't do that?

[Mish]

To answer this directly: yes, I would advocate a positive life perspective over a negative one.

Thank you. I think we are getting somewhere. Because a lot of the "need" for Religion imo is based on this.

But it absolutely does NOT follow that this requires religion. As evidenced by the existence of many very positive, non-religious individuals.

So I guess, the challenge is to find a way to create a good ideology supported by Scientific facts that will provide people with a positive outlook in life that Religious people can alternate to? And make it more successful than the idea of God?

Now, as to your anticipated extension argument about a 'replacement' for those needing religion. Again, I question just how many of those who 'need' religion actually would in the absence of early programming.

I don't know. Have you made this experiment? My guess is that children who are not indoctrinated by anything (Neither Religion nor Science) will develope some form of own subjective supernatural belief that they will want to pass on to others (Whether it be family or friends).

And, allowing for the possibility that there really exists a 'need' for a belief system as a psychological survival mechanism, there is nothing preventing those taught to think about the world logically early to choose religion as a belief system later. And that's fine.

In majority of cases I know, this is what happens anyway.

Or, they may choose an entirely different belief system. You are mistaken that there aren't other or better models for this than religion.

Well, it's a marketplace of faith out there. Majority of people have a choice of what to believe in (At least in the Western world). Which belief system will be the most successful out there? So far the most successful is the idea of a perfect God. From faith perspective this idea is flawless. Let other belief systems compete with that. The one most successful, the one that provides the most benefit to its follower will probably become the most dominant.

If, you'd like an example, check out A. Huxley's 'The Island'. (Yes, this is the same author as BNW; Island is just a lesser known work of his.)

I saw the film. It was very good actually I enjoyed it. It's a scary idea that people could take genetical engineering that far in the future.

[IndiReloaded]

I saw the film. It was very good actually I enjoyed it. It's a scary idea that people could take genetical engineering that far in the future.

No, Mish. "Island" by Aldous Huxley is nothing to do w/genetic engineering & that movie. I hesitate to give you this link, but will w/the understanding that you know my opinion of most wiki entries. If the synopsis interests, I highly recommend the book:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel[/url])

I will try to respond to some of your other points when I have more time. Busy week coming, sorry.

[IndiReloaded]

I can understand how some people are threatened by a vague notion of "Survival of the fittest" for example. This specific notion I think is misrepresentative of the theory of evolution itself, since there is proof that it's not necesarily the fittest but the most naturally adept or the most reproductive and replenishing that survive.

Mish, again, I suspect you haven't read Origin of Species, or you would understand this better. Its frustrating to have you discussing things you haven't actually read.

Meaning that there are a lot of other mechnisms than human selfishness by which life evolves and survives.

You need to understand that biologists don't think this. Its "genetic" selfishness, not "human". When you're done "Delusion" you need to read "The Selfish Gene".

Even though this notion is misrepresentative it's still being taught under guise of "natural selection". Kids go to their classrooms to learn that life is all about being "the fittest and defeating competition in any way posible" and that the "ends justify the means". I can understand why some people disagree with that cultural effect and want to stop it in any way posible

I'd like to know how you come to this conclusion. Are you a science teacher? Or do you know ppl who are & have access to their curriculum? I know several & know the texts that they use & I know for a certainty that isn't the context they are taught about natural selection.

As to 'stopping it anyway possible' this is not acceptable. If there actually IS a teacher who doesn't understand the theory, it is an education matter. However, if they are using a standard text, I doubt this is really the concern you make it out to be.

They want to find holes in logic so they can gain more followers. You must think it's a terrible crime from scientific perspective, but in the end of the day this is what some Religious people are interested in.

I think its a crime from a human perspective, not merely a scientific one. Manipulation removes choice & that is a poor way to convince someone of the merits of a way of life.

Though, there are people who actually want to believe and don't want to acknowledge the depressing "reality" provided by science. Come on, given a choice between "We are genetical zombies" and "We are souls, there's absolute good to strive to and we will live again" which one do you think most people will go for?

I stand for ppl being given that CHOICE, Mish. That is my point. And early indoctrination removes that choice.

So I guess the question is, if someone wants to live a happier life and have hope who is anyone to tell them that they can't do that?

This has nothing to do w/whether one believes in religion or not. I've already said this. There are happy ppl in both, you've already admitted this. Noone is telling anyone they can't, just that they should CHOOSE (and not have chosen FOR them) how to best attain that happiness.

Think about it.

[IndiReloaded]

Second, as far as atheism goes, doesn't it teach that we are hunks of meat with purpose for reproduction? Didn't you say it yourself?

Nope, I never said that atheism teaches this. You are deliberately misquoting me.

[Mish]

No, Mish. "Island" by Aldous Huxley is nothing to do w/genetic engineering & that movie. I hesitate to give you this link, but will w/the understanding that you know my opinion of most wiki entries. If the synopsis interests, I highly recommend the book:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel[/url])

Oh, that one. Not sure why I though about the movie. It sounds interesting. I'm unfamiliar with this book. Although I'm familiar somewhat with "Brave New World" by the same author.

I will try to respond to some of your other points when I have more time. Busy week coming, sorry.

Take your time Indi. It's not a race

[Mish]

Nope, I never said that atheism teaches this. You are deliberately misquoting me.

<Scrtaches head>

So what did you mean then when you said this?

Its the epitome of ego to need to think we have any more meaning to exist than to reproduce our genome.

Are you sure you didn't mean by this that "the meaning to exist is to reproduce our genome"? If yes, doesn't it mean that "we are hunks of meat with purpose for reproduction?"

If no, what DID you mean by this comment Indi?

[IndiReloaded]

You're making it sound like Religious people are some kind of a special group who are not subject to the same laws and rules as everyone else. If they are, please point me in the direction to apply to. Because I certainly don't get any special privilleges at the moment.

You don't, but your religious organization receives huge tax benefits. In fact, in most Western countries (mbe all not sure) they are tax-exempt. We've discussed this before.

If church organizations are tax-exempt, why not public-funded research laboratories, or school PACs or the like? Why should religion enjoy such special status? Surely you won't claim that a school PAC trying to fundraise for books for their community public school, or a lab that is searching for a cure for cancer is any less deserving of this special status?

Its rotten Mish, its unfair & its time it stopped. Religion should be treated like a golf club or a community organization or a health club. Its a service business that ppl 'choose' to become a member of, just like any other.

[IndiReloaded]

<Scrtaches head>

So what did you mean then when you said this?



Are you sure you didn't mean by this that "the meaning to exist is to reproduce our genome"? If yes, doesn't it mean that "we are hunks of meat with purpose for reproduction?"

If no, what DID you mean by this comment Indi?

I said it exactly as I meant it. That is, based on all available evidence, what our primary purpose is to exist. From a purely biological standpoint, if we don't reproduce our genome (and this doesn't mean we have to have *our own* children, we can do things to help our genetic group to reproduce--lots of evidence for this in biology), then those genes are potentially lost to future generations.

It doesn't follow, Mish, that means I think that my life is meaningless. I have done lots of things that will survive me when I am gone, besides having children. I hope those things will somehow benefit them, and some of the rest of humanity. But once I am gone, its not going to matter either way.

But there is no atheist 'dogma' that teaches this. It is my conclusion based on available data, which happens to be strongly influenced by my better-than-average understanding of genetics. You don't have to agree, that is your right as a thinking human, but I will hold this opinion until I am presented with better data that suggests otherwise. And I consider myself reasonably well-read both within & outside of science & I have yet to be presented with a better alternative that actually has anything going for it other than creative fancy, so here I sit.

[Mish]

Mish, again, I suspect you haven't read Origin of Species, or you would understand this better. Its frustrating to have you discussing things you haven't actually read.You need to understand that biologists don't think this. Its "genetic" selfishness, not "human". When you're done "Delusion" you need to read "The Selfish Gene".

I'd like to know how you come to this conclusion. Are you a science teacher? Or do you know ppl who are & have access to their curriculum? I know several & know the texts that they use & I know for a certainty that isn't the context they are taught about natural selection.

I haven't read Origin of Species cover to cover. But specifically I make references to defition of "Natural Selection" itself:

It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:

* Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
* Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
* These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.

These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.

Key words "Competition", "Survival", "Advantage" "Advantage over Competition". This is pretty much what our life becomes reduced to. Competition and trampeling others in order to survive.

It's quite depressing.

As to 'stopping it anyway possible' this is not acceptable. If there actually IS a teacher who doesn't understand the theory, it is an education matter. However, if they are using a standard text, I doubt this is really the concern you make it out to be.

I can understand how this may not be acceptable to you, but I can undertstand how some of these people may not want our culture and the general public to be influenced by these teachings.

I think its a crime from a human perspective, not merely a scientific one. Manipulation removes choice & that is a poor way to convince someone of the merits of a way of life.

I agree that it's a poor way to convince people. Though, their argument is that what's being taught at school at the moment is also manipulation.

I stand for ppl being given that CHOICE, Mish. That is my point. And early indoctrination removes that choice.

I agree with this as well. Though the idea of some Religious people is that our School systems by default remove the choice to believe from people. Their view is that their children are being indoctrinated by a theory which teaches a lot of negative values that they don't want to see in their children. So once again their kids choice is not really being removed, they are just taught conflicting values. A Scientific one at School and Religious one at home. Then they make a choice which one to believe. I'm not saying it's like this for everyone ofcourse. But for majority of people.

This has nothing to do w/whether one believes in religion or not. I've already said this. There are happy ppl in both, you've already admitted this. Noone is telling anyone they can't, just that they should CHOOSE (and not have chosen FOR them) how to best attain that happiness.

Think about it.

I admitted that there are happy people on both ends, but not on equal pars. I think that in general because Religion provides a positive perspective to strive to and a happy ending for all that Religious people are generally more satisfied and happy than those without such a perspective who need to find their own psoitive meaning in life. For this conclusion I'm using basic psychology, "that those with a positive meaning in life in general have a better well being than those who don't"

[Mish]

You don't, but your religious organization receives huge tax benefits.

First of all, I don't have a Religious Organization.

In fact, in most Western countries (mbe all not sure) they are tax-exempt. We've discussed this before.

Second why shouldn't they be tax exampt if they provide a lot of charity and philantropic work? If they do a lot of things without any money from any public instituion, why shouldn't they at least be tax exempt so they can help more people?

If church organizations are tax-exempt, why not public-funded research laboratories, or school PACs or the like? Why should religion enjoy such special status? Surely you won't claim that a school PAC trying to fundraise for books for their community public school, or a lab that is searching for a cure for cancer is any less deserving of this special status?

Well, do public funded research laboratories, Schoos PACs provide charity work? Do they send volunteers to help the poor, feed the homeless, provide free medicine in some cases? If they do then I say tax exmpt them as well. Personally I have no problem with that.

By the way, I read that philantropic activity and charity themselves are tax exmpt and in some cases even tax detuctable if carried out by any organization or individual

Its rotten Mish, its unfair & its time it stopped. Religion should be treated like a golf club or a community organization or a health club. Its a service business that ppl 'choose' to become a member of, just like any other.

I agree with this. Though I was under impression that it's already like this. The only difference being that they have a lot of members (A lot more than a golf club) I.e. A lot of voting members who can make or break a Government. If any community organization was as popular they would probably wield just as much power of the vote. From Democratic perspective this seems normal. How and why should their democratic rights be trampeled on?

[IndiReloaded]

It's quite depressing.

Two responses: 1. whether its depressing or not is irrelevant to whether its correct. 2. You choose to be depressed by this info. You could be elated by this knowledge. I am. I feel like I've won the Natural Lottery & admire the huzpah of my forebears. Nature doesn't force you to depression over this, only limited imagination.

I can understand how this may not be acceptable to you, but I can undertstand how some of these people may not want our culture and the general public to be influenced by these teachings.

Then the onus is on them to explain why their way is better, Mish. But I think you'll agree that suppression of fact isn't the most honest way to go about this.

I agree that it's a poor way to convince people. Though, their argument is that what's being taught at school at the moment is also manipulation.

Their argument is based on fear & is understandable from that perspective. But that doesn't make it right, either morally or factually.

Their view is that their children are being indoctrinated by a theory which teaches a lot of negative values that they don't want to see in their children. So once again their kids choice is not really being removed, they are just taught conflicting values. A Scientific one at School and Religious one at home. Then they make a choice which one to believe.

Of course they have to make a choice. Isn't that the whole point? The basic fact is, Mish, is that science has generated a lot of data, well supported data, that conflicts with a lot of religious dogma. So, rational thinking teaches us specific ways to deal with conflicts of this sort. That's what thinking individuals in society DO, Mish, its why we have evolved the brains we have. The fact this makes certain elements of society uncomfortable means they have some work to do, not stick their heads further in the sand.

Religion can only really keep its foothold when it is taught at an early age & with incomplete data about what is actually out there to be known. Science has nothing to fear from religion; I already said my son is well aware of the concept of God & the bible. We take him to church even for the xmas service when visiting relatives. His choices about life philosophy will be made with the fullest experience of ALL that we can expose him to, as best we can. After that, its up to him & his reasoning brain.

I admitted that there are happy people on both ends, but not on equal pars. I think that in general because Religion provides a positive perspective to strive to and a happy ending for all that Religious people are generally more satisfied and happy than those without such a perspective who need to find their own psoitive meaning in life.

I'm afraid I'll have to see an UNBIASED study on this, Mish. B/c all the data *I* am aware of says things like how the majority of individuals in US prisons are religious.

[IndiReloaded]

Second why shouldn't they be tax exampt if they provide a lot of charity and philantropic work? If they do a lot of things without any money from any public instituion, why shouldn't they at least be tax exempt so they can help more people?

B/c Mish, they aren't NOT-FOR-PROFIT. They don't produce tax year-end statments showing that the money they took in all went out for charity work. Have you been to the Vatican? Or seen the mosques that are built from these funds? All tax-exempt.

Well, do public funded research laboratories, Schoos PACs provide charity work? Do they send volunteers to help the poor, feed the homeless, provide free medicine in some cases? If they do then I say tax exmpt them as well. Personally I have no problem with that.

PACs are a MAJOR source of funding for public schools, Mish. Many schools *depend* on these funds to educate our children b/c the amounts provided by the government simply aren't enough anymore to cover the costs of educating our children.

Research labs. LOL, and just where do you think those medicines that are handed out free COME FROM?

You can't seriously be saying that educating our children & researching cures for disease isn't at least as important as feeding & clothing the poor?

But, these groups are not afforded tax-exempt status and religious groups are.

You asked for an example as to how religion is treated as a special case, I gave you one. A huge, completely unfair one that almost noone wants to talk about.

If any community organization was as popular they would probably wield just as much power of the vote. From Democratic perspective this seems normal. How and why should their democratic rights be trampeled on?

I see. Well, the Nazi party in Germany made a similar argument. So much for universal ethics, Mish. Yep, if they can control the vote that makes it okay. You might want to rethink this point. Nice one.