Religion on the decline around the world

PJ_Soul

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I think it's actually more likely that we wouldn't even understand the answer if we were presented with it. so maybe we do have it after all.

...
That's true. Maybe God is just too complex for any of us to comprehend. Maybe tha is the answer.

whenever i hear this it shits me., why would God be too complex for those who are suppose to believe in him? it makes zero sense. why would He toy with his creation that way? is He an arse? does he sit up there and laugh at our incomprehension? does it amuse Him to see us try and figure it out? i think the God is too complex for us to understand argument is a cop out cause questions asked cant be answered.

God is too complex for us to understand because that's the only way people are going to be convinced to believe in something that make no sense whatsoever.

Cosmo

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

That's true. Maybe God is just too complex for any of us to comprehend. Maybe that is the answer.

whenever i hear this it shits me., why would God be too complex for those who are suppose to believe in him? it makes zero sense. why would He toy with his creation that way? is He an arse? does he sit up there and laugh at our incomprehension? does it amuse Him to see us try and figure it out? i think the God is too complex for us to understand argument is a cop out cause questions asked cant be answered.

...
I guess it's sort of like the way my cat does not understand me. Her whole world is complicated and does not make sense. When I take her to the vet, she probably wonders, 'How come I can't find the right door or passage to get from this animal clinic back to my house where my food dish is... which one of these door leads me back home?' She can't understand the concepts of doors. She knows the doors at the house and which on leads to where... but the door at the vet's office... what door lead to this awful place?
...
And I don't believe in God in the traditional, religious sense. That is, God did not create us. We came into being as an accident of consequence. The planet formed around the right sized star and slowed to just the correct speed and at just the the right distance to sustain life... for now. Before this time... the Earth was too hot... then, it became too cold to sustain life and now the conditions are right. But, this is not going to last forever. Eventually the planet's core will cool and she will lose her atmosphere. Then, the sun will cool and expand to consume her. God is nothing like humans. Maybe, God (or Nature) simply creates life and lets life evolve.
Again... I don't know. Maybe God is Nature and we just glued our image onto Him to make us feel important. Religions do that. Doesn't mean it's true.

brianlux

PJ_Soul wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's true. Maybe God is just too complex for any of us to comprehend. Maybe tha is the answer.

whenever i hear this it shits me., why would God be too complex for those who are suppose to believe in him? it makes zero sense. why would He toy with his creation that way? is He an arse? does he sit up there and laugh at our incomprehension? does it amuse Him to see us try and figure it out? i think the God is too complex for us to understand argument is a cop out cause questions asked cant be answered.

God is too complex for us to understand because that's the only way people are going to be convinced to believe in something that make no sense whatsoever.

I'm going to agree with you both here. It's ok- call me "fence sitter".

I think if there is a God it could go either way. God could be as much less complex than we make him out to be- an entity that would be very easy to sit down and shoot the breeze with. Or it could go the other way as J. B. Phillips described in Your God is to Small in which he basically stated that as soon as you try to define God you've made him too small. I'm not sure which is right. It's a mystery to me-- which is also fine by me.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I think it's actually more likely that we wouldn't even understand the answer if we were presented with it. so maybe we do have it after all.

...
That's true. Maybe God is just too complex for any of us to comprehend. Maybe tha is the answer.

whenever i hear this it shits me., why would God be too complex for those who are suppose to believe in him? it makes zero sense. why would He toy with his creation that way? is He an arse? does he sit up there and laugh at our incomprehension? does it amuse Him to see us try and figure it out? i think the God is too complex for us to understand argument is a cop out cause questions asked cant be answered.

I never said God, Cosmo did. I was saying the answer (whatever that may be) is too complicated for us to understand. As in, the infiniteness of the universe. Can anyone really comprehend that it is infinite, that that's all there is, I mean, everything is contained in SOMETHING, how is the universe it? I can walk out my door, why can't we walk out the universe into the subflagerninglymanifestichato?

all respect to Como, but that's what I was referring to.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Cosmo wrote:

...
I guess it's sort of like the way my cat does not understand me. Her whole world is complicated and does not make sense. When I take her to the vet, she probably wonders, 'How come I can't find the right door or passage to get from this animal clinic back to my house where my food dish is... which one of these door leads me back home?' She can't understand the concepts of doors. She knows the doors at the house and which on leads to where... but the door at the vet's office... what door lead to this awful place?
...
And I don't believe in God in the traditional, religious sense. That is, God did not create us. We came into being as an accident of consequence. The planet formed around the right sized star and slowed to just the correct speed and at just the the right distance to sustain life... for now. Before this time... the Earth was too hot... then, it became too cold to sustain life and now the conditions are right. But, this is not going to last forever. Eventually the planet's core will cool and she will lose her atmosphere. Then, the sun will cool and expand to consume her. God is nothing like humans. Maybe, God (or Nature) simply creates life and lets life evolve.
Again... I don't know. Maybe God is Nature and we just glued our image onto Him to make us feel important. Religions do that. Doesn't mean it's true.

all of the underlined points are exactly what I think. Cosmo, we need to meet up, sit down, smoke a doob, and have a 7 hour chat about the universe.

and bring President Chadwick too.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

ever see the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode called The Genesis Tub? that, in a ridiculously cartoonish way, is how I see things happened.

catefrances

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's true. Maybe God is just too complex for any of us to comprehend. Maybe tha is the answer.

whenever i hear this it shits me., why would God be too complex for those who are suppose to believe in him? it makes zero sense. why would He toy with his creation that way? is He an arse? does he sit up there and laugh at our incomprehension? does it amuse Him to see us try and figure it out? i think the God is too complex for us to understand argument is a cop out cause questions asked cant be answered.

I never said God, Cosmo did. I was saying the answer (whatever that may be) is too complicated for us to understand. As in, the infiniteness of the universe. Can anyone really comprehend that it is infinite, that that's all there is, I mean, everything is contained in SOMETHING, how is the universe it? I can walk out my door, why can't we walk out the universe into the subflagerninglymanifestichato?

all respect to Como, but that's what I was referring to.

my comments were aimed at cosmo's post.

oh and you cant walk out of the universe cause gravity wont allow you to.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Being educated and being brainwashed can easily be confused. Which is which? Is it - if you agree with it, that it's education, and if you disagree is it brainwashing? Think about it.

Not to over simplify the issue but I'd say that if the teacher encourages critical thinking and skepticism, that is education but if they dish out information and beliefs as truth without encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

Which method of teaching used most often in religious teaching? That's a rhetorical question. It's also why I personally rejected all religion and choose the simpler beliefs of mystery and wonder.

No offense, Brian... but, I find this post pretty funny.

Let's re-work what you wrote and think about "climate change"... instead of "religion".

To use your words in regards to climate change - If a teacher encourages critical thinking and "SKEPTICISM" that is education, right? If they dish out information and beliefs as truth WITHOUT encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

This is coming from a person who's used the term "DENIER" regarding those who don't completely buy into what global climate change is selling. I mean I was always a person who said - I'm not sure it's real. I don't buy it completely. I build statistical models, like the ones used for climate change, I know they are faulty. I know the data is questionable at best. I know there could be incentives for there to be climate change. It could be real, but it very well may not be. Just like many thought the world was flat, but some questioned that logic.

I don't mean for that to come across as instigating, I'm seriously curious. It appears to me that some here want religious folks to fit into certain rules, but then don't want those same rules to apply to them if it's an issue they feel passionately about.

Seems kinda... hypocritical. That's all.

inlet13

hedonist wrote:

inlet, once again, gotta say I appreciate your posts and viewpoints - not necessarily because I tend to agree with them, but because they make sense to me.

PJ_Soul, I don't necessarily disagree with you on some of your points, but at the same time, they're kind of insulting to me, to my family. I can respect how you've come to your conclusions, but some of your comments seem dismissive of those who have come to theirs by a different means. As I see it, in the end, those who are honest, decent, open-minded people live their lives by a certain credo - much like those who are non-religious and yet (still!) good people.

Hope this is taken in the spirit with which it's intended.

Thanks. I feel the same about yours. It's open-mindedness that I enjoy.

inlet13

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, I didn't. I know that MANY people aren't capable of coming to their own conclusions because I spent so much time around so many of them during my own explorations - I'm talking about entire congregations of people, who are a good example of what is being match among other congregations within the same denomination. It's not a mistake... The churches go out of their way to do it, and are good at what they do. They tried to do it to me too, just as a matter of course. And btw, when I rejected what they were trying to do (brainwash me), they told me I was going to burn in hell and shit. They don't kid around. And I'm talking several different Christian churches (I did NOT have the same kinds of experiences with Islamists, although I did did some exploring with Sikhism, and it really wasn't much different in this context, but they were more careful and less obvious about it, by design). I do NOT mean all people. But a great many of them. It's how organized religion works. You don't have to take my word on it obviously. I only have my own experiences and observations to go on (and what else I hear from others). But I do think that my own experiences are pretty informative.

So, anyway, I thought this thread was interesting because there were a lot of open-minded folks kinda exchanging ideas. I kinda think your posts come across as judgmental. I think you're trying to be open-minded, but don't realize that you're coming across as ridiculously judgmental, which is kinda sad.

I also have experience with religion, I don't see it the same way you do at all. I understand that people don't like this religious institution, or that. They have a right - and you have the right to say what you are saying about these people. Basically, you're saying they are in cults and they don't know it. That's how I interpret what you're saying.

I'd say you are coming off as close-minded as the people we were originally discussing.

Jeanwah

PJ_Soul wrote:

And I am always understanding of those who find comfort or whatever else in their beliefs, assuming they don't get in the way of anyone else's beliefs. I'm not open minded about organized religion or how it works, but I am open minded about people and how they choose to live their lives.

Are you dismissive of spirituality as well as religion PJ_Soul? I honestly get this negative feel from your posts, as if you are not open minded to much of anything not only religious, but any sort of spirituality.

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Being educated and being brainwashed can easily be confused. Which is which? Is it - if you agree with it, that it's education, and if you disagree is it brainwashing? Think about it.

Not to over simplify the issue but I'd say that if the teacher encourages critical thinking and skepticism, that is education but if they dish out information and beliefs as truth without encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

Which method of teaching used most often in religious teaching? That's a rhetorical question. It's also why I personally rejected all religion and choose the simpler beliefs of mystery and wonder.

No offense, Brian... but, I find this post pretty funny.

Let's re-work what you wrote and think about "climate change"... instead of "religion".

To use your words in regards to climate change - If a teacher encourages critical thinking and "SKEPTICISM" that is education, right? If they dish out information and beliefs as truth WITHOUT encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

This is coming from a person who's used the term "DENIER" regarding those who don't completely buy into what global climate change is selling. I mean I was always a person who said - I'm not sure it's real. I don't buy it completely. I build statistical models, like the ones used for climate change, I know they are faulty. I know the data is questionable at best. I know there could be incentives for there to be climate change. It could be real, but it very well may not be. Just like many thought the world was flat, but some questioned that logic.

I don't mean for that to come across as instigating, I'm seriously curious. It appears to me that some here want religious folks to fit into certain rules, but then don't want those same rules to apply to them if it's an issue they feel passionately about.

Seems kinda... hypocritical. That's all.

Inlet, we may agree to a point here. First and foremost I do contend that there's a difference between having information (data for positivist quant and qual researchers) that, while disputable, is compelling information nonetheless and basing one's beliefs solely on 'faith", a book a bunch of dudes on shrooms wrote, and interpretations of this fantastical book by men with varied personal interests in spreading its "word". Thus I will disagree to a point as well.

But, for the first time ever, we do agree that it would not seem germane to Brian's or my critical worldview to ask people to question their very basic assumptions, then maintain their own without question. I can't wait for classes to start...generally the best days are the one's where my own beliefs are questioned by students and we both work back from the start (asking why they/I believe what we do). Thus for Brian why do you believe so deeply in climate change being "real" (it very well may be and I am partial to this belief), and why do people who believe in god believe so deeply in him/it/her? Sometimes we find that their are motives beyond the belief in said thing, sometimes its rooted in some more persuasive information, and so on. Regardless, and again for the first time ever, I agree with Inlet that no assumption/belief is above reproach.

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, I didn't. I know that MANY people aren't capable of coming to their own conclusions because I spent so much time around so many of them during my own explorations - I'm talking about entire congregations of people, who are a good example of what is being match among other congregations within the same denomination. It's not a mistake... The churches go out of their way to do it, and are good at what they do. They tried to do it to me too, just as a matter of course. And btw, when I rejected what they were trying to do (brainwash me), they told me I was going to burn in hell and shit. They don't kid around. And I'm talking several different Christian churches (I did NOT have the same kinds of experiences with Islamists, although I did did some exploring with Sikhism, and it really wasn't much different in this context, but they were more careful and less obvious about it, by design). I do NOT mean all people. But a great many of them. It's how organized religion works. You don't have to take my word on it obviously. I only have my own experiences and observations to go on (and what else I hear from others). But I do think that my own experiences are pretty informative.

So, anyway, I thought this thread was interesting because there were a lot of open-minded folks kinda exchanging ideas. I kinda think your posts come across as judgmental. I think you're trying to be open-minded, but don't realize that you're coming across as ridiculously judgmental, which is kinda sad.

I also have experience with religion, I don't see it the same way you do at all. I understand that people don't like this religious institution, or that. They have a right - and you have the right to say what you are saying about these people. Basically, you're saying they are in cults and they don't know it. That's how I interpret what you're saying.

I'd say you are coming off as close-minded as the people we were originally discussing.

Well, I certaiy do have an opinion on the matter, and do hold certain beliefs about what organized religions are (yes, cults... too bad people get offended by that thinking but it's how it seems to me). I don't believe that makes me close-minded though. I don't understand how... if that's true, then we can all call each other closed-minded, sincs we all disagree with other people. What would be the alternative here? What would make me appear open-minded? I've already said that I respect that others find comfort or peace in their beliefs as long as they don't interfere with other people's rights or beliefs, even though I don't believe in the same things. Not sure how that's close-minded.

As far as being judgemental goes... sure okay. I have ideas that feel pretty solid on, and those opinions include other people and their beliefs. If that is judgement, then I guess I'll own it? If that's judgemental, then it's totally unavoidable for us all (like you being judgemental about me in this post, for example, or any other time you or any of us make statements against things that others believe in). Fact of life I guess. But I think throwing around the term seems kind of strange and hypocritical for anyone around hear who participates in these discussions.

In the end, I've been dead honest about how I see things. I know that my opinions rub people the wrong way; atheists do rub non-atheists the wrong way pretty often I guess because we necessarily believe that what they believe is a crock. :? There doesn't seem any way around that.... it's what atheism is basically based on. And btw, people are outrageously judgemental towards atheists as well. But I don't take offense to that, because it's just an absolute given.

If any one of you claim that you're never judgemental, I'll call you a liar.

inlet13

RW81233 wrote:

Inlet, we may agree to a point here. First and foremost I do contend that there's a difference between having information (data for positivist quant and qual researchers) that, while disputable, is compelling information nonetheless and basing one's beliefs solely on 'faith", a book a bunch of dudes on shrooms wrote, and interpretations of this fantastical book by men with varied personal interests in spreading its "word". Thus I will disagree to a point as well.

But, for the first time ever, we do agree that it would not seem germane to Brian's or my critical worldview to ask people to question their very basic assumptions, then maintain their own without question. I can't wait for classes to start...generally the best days are the one's where my own beliefs are questioned by students and we both work back from the start (asking why they/I believe what we do). Thus for Brian why do you believe so deeply in climate change being "real" (it very well may be and I am partial to this belief), and why do people who believe in god believe so deeply in him/it/her? Sometimes we find that their are motives beyond the belief in said thing, sometimes its rooted in some more persuasive information, and so on. Regardless, and again for the first time ever, I agree with Inlet that no assumption/belief is above reproach.

Glad you've finally come to your senses! Just kidding.

I do agree though with your premise and even others who've discussed the topic in a different way - basically, a good teacher doesn't indoctrinate. They discuss and present all sides. If one really believes there's a truth, it shouldn't need to be force-fed. In fact, that could work in the opposite manner.

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, I didn't. I know that MANY people aren't capable of coming to their own conclusions because I spent so much time around so many of them during my own explorations - I'm talking about entire congregations of people, who are a good example of what is being match among other congregations within the same denomination. It's not a mistake... The churches go out of their way to do it, and are good at what they do. They tried to do it to me too, just as a matter of course. And btw, when I rejected what they were trying to do (brainwash me), they told me I was going to burn in hell and shit. They don't kid around. And I'm talking several different Christian churches (I did NOT have the same kinds of experiences with Islamists, although I did did some exploring with Sikhism, and it really wasn't much different in this context, but they were more careful and less obvious about it, by design). I do NOT mean all people. But a great many of them. It's how organized religion works. You don't have to take my word on it obviously. I only have my own experiences and observations to go on (and what else I hear from others). But I do think that my own experiences are pretty informative.

So, anyway, I thought this thread was interesting because there were a lot of open-minded folks kinda exchanging ideas. I kinda think your posts come across as judgmental. I think you're trying to be open-minded, but don't realize that you're coming across as ridiculously judgmental, which is kinda sad.

I also have experience with religion, I don't see it the same way you do at all. I understand that people don't like this religious institution, or that. They have a right - and you have the right to say what you are saying about these people. Basically, you're saying they are in cults and they don't know it. That's how I interpret what you're saying.

I'd say you are coming off as close-minded as the people we were originally discussing.

inlet this depends on the meaning of cult that you are using here with regard to pjsoul. cult used to mean new religious movements and then in recent times has taken on more negative connotations (like the Waco, TX thingy). Honestly, as a person in Cultural Studies/Sociology, I see many similarities in traditional organized religions and cults as they have been popularly known - both violent and non-violent. Of course this doesn't mean every religious person is brainwashed or stupid or unskeptical or murderous, but some pretty horrible things have happened in their "honor". Further, I too had similarly difficult experiences as a youngster practicing the book of Cathol. I am confirmed, served as an altar boy and did all the church stuff, but as I got older and started asking questions like what was so different between what happened in Waco and what has gone on in the world under Christianity things weren't so fun. Does that mean everyone has had that same negative experience with religion or spirituality no. But my and pjsouls probably cloud our vision of how good religion and spirituality can be.

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Inlet, we may agree to a point here. First and foremost I do contend that there's a difference between having information (data for positivist quant and qual researchers) that, while disputable, is compelling information nonetheless and basing one's beliefs solely on 'faith", a book a bunch of dudes on shrooms wrote, and interpretations of this fantastical book by men with varied personal interests in spreading its "word". Thus I will disagree to a point as well.

But, for the first time ever, we do agree that it would not seem germane to Brian's or my critical worldview to ask people to question their very basic assumptions, then maintain their own without question. I can't wait for classes to start...generally the best days are the one's where my own beliefs are questioned by students and we both work back from the start (asking why they/I believe what we do). Thus for Brian why do you believe so deeply in climate change being "real" (it very well may be and I am partial to this belief), and why do people who believe in god believe so deeply in him/it/her? Sometimes we find that their are motives beyond the belief in said thing, sometimes its rooted in some more persuasive information, and so on. Regardless, and again for the first time ever, I agree with Inlet that no assumption/belief is above reproach.

Glad you've finally come to your senses! Just kidding.

I do agree though with your premise and even others who've discussed the topic in a different way - basically, a good teacher doesn't indoctrinate. They discuss and present all sides. If one really believes there's a truth, it shouldn't need to be force-fed. In fact, that could work in the opposite manner.

Exactly, when I first taught I'd get all fired up and had many students who would like it but some others who'd be turned off and not listen/come to class. As I've developed as a person/prof I've made other ways of thinking more available in class, admit to my own leanings, then ask to discuss them. As a result my student evals have gone from 4.1/5 to something like 4.8/5 in the last couple years. For those wondering if that's just easy grading I have a 30 percent D or lower rate in courses.

inlet13

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, I didn't. I know that MANY people aren't capable of coming to their own conclusions because I spent so much time around so many of them during my own explorations - I'm talking about entire congregations of people, who are a good example of what is being match among other congregations within the same denomination. It's not a mistake... The churches go out of their way to do it, and are good at what they do. They tried to do it to me too, just as a matter of course. And btw, when I rejected what they were trying to do (brainwash me), they told me I was going to burn in hell and shit. They don't kid around. And I'm talking several different Christian churches (I did NOT have the same kinds of experiences with Islamists, although I did did some exploring with Sikhism, and it really wasn't much different in this context, but they were more careful and less obvious about it, by design). I do NOT mean all people. But a great many of them. It's how organized religion works. You don't have to take my word on it obviously. I only have my own experiences and observations to go on (and what else I hear from others). But I do think that my own experiences are pretty informative.

So, anyway, I thought this thread was interesting because there were a lot of open-minded folks kinda exchanging ideas. I kinda think your posts come across as judgmental. I think you're trying to be open-minded, but don't realize that you're coming across as ridiculously judgmental, which is kinda sad.

I also have experience with religion, I don't see it the same way you do at all. I understand that people don't like this religious institution, or that. They have a right - and you have the right to say what you are saying about these people. Basically, you're saying they are in cults and they don't know it. That's how I interpret what you're saying.

I'd say you are coming off as close-minded as the people we were originally discussing.

inlet this depends on the meaning of cult that you are using here with regard to pjsoul. cult used to mean new religious movements and then in recent times has taken on more negative connotations (like the Waco, TX thingy). Honestly, as a person in Cultural Studies/Sociology, I see many similarities in traditional organized religions and cults as they have been popularly known - both violent and non-violent. Of course this doesn't mean every religious person is brainwashed or stupid or unskeptical or murderous, but some pretty horrible things have happened in their "honor". Further, I too had similarly difficult experiences as a youngster practicing the book of Cathol. I am confirmed, served as an altar boy and did all the church stuff, but as I got older and started asking questions like what was so different between what happened in Waco and what has gone on in the world under Christianity things weren't so fun. Does that mean everyone has had that same negative experience with religion or spirituality no. But my and pjsouls probably cloud our vision of how good religion and spirituality can be.

I also come from the book of Cathol as you call it. I don't see any similarities whatsoever with a cult. To me -cults are to be recently formed, small, groups which exercise rigid control through one figure - not a body of figures. They freak if you escape.

Catholic church is 2000 years old. If it's not the largest, it's one of the top three largest religions in the world. It does not exercise rigid control over it's members - there are millions and millions of lapsed Catholics who have don't care about the religion. Brainwashing doesn't appear to be working lol. If you don't go to mass, no one cares - at least that was the case when I grew up. Sorry - I don't see it. It's not a cult. But, that's one example that I know about and I only comment on that one religion because you brought it up. How about Islam? How about the Jewish faith? Buddhism? Etc.

In a way, this conversation is exactly what we've been discussing in the thread, except it's providing evidence more concrete evidence that other side exists. Throughout this thread, most folks were kinda trading stories/thoughts about hard-headed folks who are sure they know and demand you do the same - totalitarian atheists or totalitarian believers. We were kinda saying that the approach should be "to each his or her own" - each faith should be respected, regardless of what it is and each person should be respected. I kinda think the synopsis of the thread was - If you love your faith (or lack there of) - great - you can talk about it I guess with respect - but, if you do also respect that someone else may be just as smart, just as wise and have their own faith (or lack there of). Respect to all, and don't assume you know better was the key here.

To me, Pj_soul's comments throughout were leaning towards the intolerant non-religious folks, if not fully engulfed - that's my opinion, however. Your defense of her comments... don't agree with them at all. Not sure where you stand on this issue though because you're kinda jumping in randomly here.

Anyway, to each his or her own. Enjoy class.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Being educated and being brainwashed can easily be confused. Which is which? Is it - if you agree with it, that it's education, and if you disagree is it brainwashing? Think about it.

Not to over simplify the issue but I'd say that if the teacher encourages critical thinking and skepticism, that is education but if they dish out information and beliefs as truth without encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

Which method of teaching used most often in religious teaching? That's a rhetorical question. It's also why I personally rejected all religion and choose the simpler beliefs of mystery and wonder.

No offense, Brian... but, I find this post pretty funny.

Let's re-work what you wrote and think about "climate change"... instead of "religion".

To use your words in regards to climate change - If a teacher encourages critical thinking and "SKEPTICISM" that is education, right? If they dish out information and beliefs as truth WITHOUT encouraging that kind of thinking, that is brainwashing.

This is coming from a person who's used the term "DENIER" regarding those who don't completely buy into what global climate change is selling. I mean I was always a person who said - I'm not sure it's real. I don't buy it completely. I build statistical models, like the ones used for climate change, I know they are faulty. I know the data is questionable at best. I know there could be incentives for there to be climate change. It could be real, but it very well may not be. Just like many thought the world was flat, but some questioned that logic.

I don't mean for that to come across as instigating, I'm seriously curious. It appears to me that some here want religious folks to fit into certain rules, but then don't want those same rules to apply to them if it's an issue they feel passionately about.

Seems kinda... hypocritical. That's all.

"Funny", "hypocritical"? I think not. This is not a fair comparison. Climate change/global warming is quantifiable. God/religion is not. :fp: You'll have to try harder than that to pick a feud with me.

RW81233

yeah hopped on late sorry for that....honestly as I've grown the most compelling religion for me is the Jewish religion. They still debate shit from their books (not down with doing the rituals and stuff but I still put up a tree and lights so wtf), and they still fight with one another about interpretations and what it all means. Still in then end they all come together. As for the book of Cathol (that's from a comedy set I saw once fuck I can't remember who did it - a british dude in drag pretty famous too), where I went to church it was noted when you weren't there and you got looks and questions for not going. I have a feeling some peoples' negative experiences stem from this treatment. This past year I hung out with my good friend's grad student who is pretty religious and he basically told me my experience was nowhere near his. He was encouraged to question and think differently and interpret the 'good book' in his own way. I'll bet that if that were my experience I'd have a different outlook on this stuff. I'll read the rest of the thread in the morning to catch up. Good luck this semester!

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

So, anyway, I thought this thread was interesting because there were a lot of open-minded folks kinda exchanging ideas. I kinda think your posts come across as judgmental. I think you're trying to be open-minded, but don't realize that you're coming across as ridiculously judgmental, which is kinda sad.

I also have experience with religion, I don't see it the same way you do at all. I understand that people don't like this religious institution, or that. They have a right - and you have the right to say what you are saying about these people. Basically, you're saying they are in cults and they don't know it. That's how I interpret what you're saying.

I'd say you are coming off as close-minded as the people we were originally discussing.

inlet this depends on the meaning of cult that you are using here with regard to pjsoul. cult used to mean new religious movements and then in recent times has taken on more negative connotations (like the Waco, TX thingy). Honestly, as a person in Cultural Studies/Sociology, I see many similarities in traditional organized religions and cults as they have been popularly known - both violent and non-violent. Of course this doesn't mean every religious person is brainwashed or stupid or unskeptical or murderous, but some pretty horrible things have happened in their "honor". Further, I too had similarly difficult experiences as a youngster practicing the book of Cathol. I am confirmed, served as an altar boy and did all the church stuff, but as I got older and started asking questions like what was so different between what happened in Waco and what has gone on in the world under Christianity things weren't so fun. Does that mean everyone has had that same negative experience with religion or spirituality no. But my and pjsouls probably cloud our vision of how good religion and spirituality can be.

I also come from the book of Cathol as you call it. I don't see any similarities whatsoever with a cult. To me -cults are to be recently formed, small, groups which exercise rigid control through one figure - not a body of figures. They freak if you escape.

Catholic church is 2000 years old. If it's not the largest, it's one of the top three largest religions in the world. It does not exercise rigid control over it's members - there are millions and millions of lapsed Catholics who have don't care about the religion. Brainwashing doesn't appear to be working lol. If you don't go to mass, no one cares - at least that was the case when I grew up. Sorry - I don't see it. It's not a cult. But, that's one example that I know about and I only comment on that one religion because you brought it up. How about Islam? How about the Jewish faith? Buddhism? Etc.

In a way, this conversation is exactly what we've been discussing in the thread, except it's providing evidence more concrete evidence that other side exists. Throughout this thread, most folks were kinda trading stories/thoughts about hard-headed folks who are sure they know and demand you do the same - totalitarian atheists or totalitarian believers. We were kinda saying that the approach should be "to each his or her own" - each faith should be respected, regardless of what it is and each person should be respected. I kinda think the synopsis of the thread was - If you love your faith (or lack there of) - great - you can talk about it I guess with respect - but, if you do also respect that someone else may be just as smart, just as wise and have their own faith (or lack there of). Respect to all, and don't assume you know better was the key here.

To me, Pj_soul's comments throughout were leaning towards the intolerant non-religious folks, if not fully engulfed - that's my opinion, however. Your defense of her comments... don't agree with them at all. Not sure where you stand on this issue though because you're kinda jumping in randomly here.

Anyway, to each his or her own. Enjoy class.

If that's what you think of me, then you are mistaken, or I have poorly expressed myself. However, I've said several times now that I respect that others find comfort and strength in their belief of god. I have no idea how that translates into fanatical intolerance for you. I think you are completely misinterpreting everything I've said. For the record, I am the only atheist in my family, and have only one friend who shares my beliefs. None of all those believers think of me as intolerant (I am, however, intolerant of those who try to impinge on others' beliefs... I think that says it all, and it's not the first time I've said it).

As far as the cult thing goes... that seems to simply be a matter of what we think that means. My definition of what a cult is differs from yours. Semantics, really.

All in all though, aside from your low opinion of me, who h I guess came about because I happen to be the one who offended you (I prescribe to the 'oh, I offended you? Well so the fuck what?' Mantra), I think this whole thread has been pretty cool!