Mike Huckabee says removing God from schools is to blame for shooting
Lets assume ..... your son calls you in the middke of the night. he says that he wants to come home, he feels that his car is undependable and wants you to come and get him.
You say, give it a chance, come as far as you can and THEN I'll come the rest of the way , ... to come and get you. We first need to make the best effert that we can, AND THEN ..... ?The issue is that the Bible is preached and taught in a manner that doesn't promote you coming as far as you can by yourself AND THEN... The bible is being taught, preached, and promoted as go to God with your hand out dependent on him for everything and do what he says OR ELSE... It is this teaching and preaching that is keeping a lot of people crippled and too powerless to care for themselves, which makes them easier to control.
If you have to meet God halfway then you are not receiving a gift, you are earning a reward. Although the Bible does talk about rewards and punishments, the gift of eternal life is a gift. If you gotta earn it, then it's not a gift. And if it's not a gift, then what's the point? Then the Bible truly does become self-contradictory and we've all been wasting our time.
Is that really the analogy you want to run with?
When a mind holds a false premise as truth, then, it is impossible to answer even straight forward questions in any way that makes sense. Therefore even though they feel that they are not lying, their answer betrays logic, rendering the answer to be deceptive drivel. But the indoctrinated person is not to blame, because the mind can be rigid when protecting the ego. The deluded mind creates deception after deception, pleading with others to accept their false premise as logical and rational.
But in essence, they are lying. Even if one is hypnotized into lying, the fact of the matter is that they are not telling the truth, sometimes even inventing convoluted webs, thinking that somehow they, now, make sense, but the initial problem remains.....they are supporting a FALSE premise as TRUTH.agreed, except the ego is ridged when protecting the super-ego.
And that anology only applies to Christians and not Atheists.......................yea right
The original comment was not aimed at either group(Christian or Atheist) but rather describes the defense mechanisms of ANYONE holding a false premise as truth...whether religious or in general.
The super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role. The Super-ego can be thought of as a type of conscience that punishes misbehavior with feelings of guilt. The super-ego aims for perfection.
Sound familiar?
The real trick is to figure out which of the two interactive people is the actual deluded and rigid one, or at least which one is MORE deluded and rigid. Because the truly rigid one can believe they are rational to the point where any sort of invective thrown at the other person is completely justified in their minds, even when any sort of logic or rationale of any kind has long been abandoned.
Instead of changing their false premise so that it fits more reasonably with reality, believers prefer to deal with the dissonance by becoming indignant. Some even project the messenger's statement back to the messenger, thinking that this somehow assuages the cognitive dissonance caused by holding an illogical premise. The solution to the problem is to simply abandon the false premise. Of course the deluded mind doesn't have the strength to perform this simple task.
Often times with anyone, the foundations of how they were raised and the values and beliefs (or lack thereof) are instilled from childhood. as a result, any premise (no matter how true or false) is reality to the person experiencing the premise. This makes it difficult to abandon that premise or to even change all that they know into what they thought they knew. Which closes the mind more than a little to other ideals at times
I certainly understand that. I, myself, am a recovering religious "addict"
I understand the fright associated with change, especially when that change will cause a complete reexamination of reality and ones place in that reality. It is the fear that one's SELF will be destroyed if these erroneous concepts are abandoned. I think it's better to take the leap and see what reality tastes like, rather than living my whole life ensconced in a fairy tale. I have come to find REALITY fascinating.Which reality?? The reality that works best for you? or the "real" reality? No I'm not trying to be insulting here, but there is the way the world really works, and the way we understand that the world works. Your new understanding of "reality", although very compelling and very valid for the way you live your life, is not everyone's understanding of that same "reality"
The reality I refer to is the reality that is not "made up" or dictated from someone else's subjective perspective.
How something works for me, or not, has no bearing on objective reality.
Just because others have different understandings of reality does not nullify objective reality, but only validates the effects of indoctrination.
So the reality that you refer to is more of a reality that is based on your understanding of the world? Which is a reality free from indoctrination? I can see that in you.
I agree with that point.. But then again objective still makes provisions for any possibility (no matter how miniscule)
Objective reality can and will never be nullified. We are in complete agreement on this one.
The proposition that a believer suffers, ipso facto, from a cognitive dissonance (which you have leveled at me before) is an assumption which, at least in my case, is not based on an analysis of the available data nor on an investigation of the subject under discussion but instead on your previously held belief about same subject. And you're pretty indignant yourself when you get challenged.
We all can get pretty defensive regarding our beliefs (or lack thereof). This is part of why I present opposing opinions objectively (or equally biased against both sides, your choice..LOL) My actual Overall belief system is one that opens me up to attack from both believers and non believers and I don't always feel like having to argue a point about a specific belief system that is working best for me in my life at this point.
I saw a bill board up in Austin yesterday advertising an Atheists convention. On the bill board was a picture of Sarah Palin with a quote, "I think we should make laws based upon the Bible."
Stipulating that the quote was accurate (I didn't try to find a link) this is the crux of the problem. We can argue who is delusional or rigid or whatever but once you attempt to enforce the Bible upon society then you have taken a private belief into the public sector. That is why this debate matters.Okay, sorry. I'll try again.
Many believers claim to have direct conversations with God, where they claim God tells them who and when to the right and righteous and they follow that voice because they believe it to be gods voice. This inner dialogue is a very normal part of the brains function and everyone one has it, but it should not be confused with God at all. Freud's model of the human brain consisted of basically three parts. The ID = subconscious and primal. The Ego = mostly conscious and kind of like the play by play announcer only it's jobs is to balance the needs of the ID and the Super-ego. Super-ego = mostly unconscious and aims for perfection and can be thought of as a type of conscience that punishes misbehavior with feelings of guilt. The super-ego strives to act in a socially appropriate manner.
We all have this same model, but what happens when you're told that this super-ego is God. Well you listen because it's God and God should be helping you to do the right thing. But this compromises the job of the Ego and creates an imbalance because the conscious part of your brain doesn't know when to tell your Super-ego to stop. It also doesn't know when to tell the ID, enough.Thank you for taking the time to rewrite your thoughts.
I can appreciate from a physiological aspect this all makes perfect sense to you ,and in a minute way daspects of the mind fascinate me as well. I do not think it is by any means conclusive however and spirituality since its deals with things spiritual can not be wrapped up in a box and labelled as such. by human minds)
Freud studied the mind as have hundreds of people before and after him. Freud was a man, and as talented as he may be revered now. he was born a man and died a man.
The hows and whys are all well and good ,but at the end of the day what then?
Who do we say Jesus is ? because if we say he is the son of God and did all the things he claims and others witnessed then He is Somebody but if on the other hand someone can prove that he has merely been a figment of our imaginations then He is Nobody.
Why should I just accept the findings and theories of another human being,why should anyone?Unless, you can give us a reason why the spiritual cannot be dealt with by human minds, then your claim is vacuous.
Your entire life and everything you use in it is a result of findings and theories of another human being.
Many believe that God is everywhere and schools should not have to mention his name or tell children what to believe. The morals come from home or the individuals own sense of right and wrong.
Schools have a obligation to teach children to think for themselves and come to their own conclusion. The staff can and do emulate good behavior most of the time so students can learn right from wrong.
I know most school personnel do try hard to show the best in human behavior and if kids think its Gods way then so be it.
Unfortunately the news media shows the worst offenders because it brings in views and ad revenue.On a purely personal level I don't disagree with you, but it's worth pointing out here that the removal of Christianity from certain aspects of school life is not the same as the removal of religion from school life. In my son's school they talk about Islam and Native American religions (as they should) much more reverently than Christianity. And I don't know about my kid's schools, but when I went to school it was not difficult to find books in the school library about wiccans and witchcraft. But the Bible?
Try any nightstand in any given motel room, where you won't find books on Wicca, witchcraft, Islam or Native Americans, but you will find in abundance the book of myths you refer, nonetheless.
Ah of course, the schools where children are required to go by law and we have little or no control over what they see and learn in them, and places of business where people pay money to stay and might find one religious tome in nightstand (maybe, if it hasn't been stolen or defaced) and how many channels of porn? Why, it's obvious! How could I have been so blind? Thank you, Atmo, for opening my eyes!
Not sure if there was a point to that rant, but glad to have opened your eyes.
That's why faculty should only be required to encourage morality in school, and throw ALL religions in the garbage...where they belong. Then no one(including you)will have to worry about being slighted. Case solved.
I totally agree with this. It should be all or nothing. But in the case of schools it may be better to not trach religion in school because you have so many different levels of indoctrination that it would be a huge mess
Ethics should be taught starting at a young age in school. That way no one will ask me "if you don't believe in God what's stopping from killing someone?" Sometimes religion stunts moral or ethical maturity. They are told not to do things for God will punish you, and they never develop past that.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would, indeed, be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
~~Albert EinsteinA lot of that has to do with a lack of imagination on the part of those imparting the values. So much of the beauty of Christianity has gotten lost. Don't get me wrong, fear of hell is not the worst thing (since there actually is such a place) but the joy of being in communion with God and the wonder of us being made in His image is completely lost on not only those outside the faith but on so many inside of it as well.
Hi Chris, long time no see..... I just looked into this discussion, and can't help but notice this sentence from you :
Have you any difficulty with saying "since, in my opinion, there is such a place?"
Also, what would you see as a "worse" place?No, I don't have difficulty, but if it were only my opinion then it would be pretty useless (although I'm sure there are those who already think that
) I do admit I could be wrong but as long as I believe myself to be correct then hell is as much a place as Toronto or Indianapolis, you just get there a little differently.
And no I can't imagine a worse place. I don't really know what it's like but the Bible has nothing good to say about it. And I used to live in New York City, so I can imagine plenty bad.
P.S. - I expect to get banned for self-promotion any day now, but since I've already started it (going with the flow on a different forum) if you're interested in hearing what I sound like (kinda):
http://www.chrisneal.podbean.com/
Reality is more beautiful than an imaginary con game.
In the 21st century, these are the types of outlandishly illogical comments that take an immense toll on ones credibility...
That's probably because its' only inside the heads of people who have thoroughly deluded themselves. You know...just like Bigfoot.I could not agree more. That's why a relationship with God is the most beautiful of all.
If someone needs an imaginary con game in order to be content, then so be it. But I wouldn't go calling it reality. People might misinterpret that as being unbalanced.
I completely agree. Too bad for them. But if they need an imaginary con game, that means they don't have God.
Religion is a demon(delusion)...a demon that plants itself deep within the subconscious of the believer, then protects itself by, taking over, and playing insidious mind games with anyone who opposes it. Fascinating psychology.
That is the funniest thing I've heard this week!
I don't think it's funny at all. The mind does what it needs to to survive. The mind creating a simulation to survive is an incredible process, but not funny at all. A mind dominated by the Super-ego leaves a weak beaten ego unable to see reality.
So if the mind does what it needs to do for survival, then would that mean that their ethics and morals would be changed to accomodate the survival?
Ethics and morals are established by society. Generally speaking our laws reflect them.
But generally speaking the morals set by society as a whole do not necessarily mean they are correct. This is similar to applying a blanket principle to individual ideals
I think they are correct and that's why we have laws. If we were to use the bible as our source for laws, we'd still have slaves or be slaves and we be marrying children. It's wrong to do that to children and it's wrong to keep slaves. Why? Because it hurts them. Ethics.
By no means Am I suggesting the bible for use as a source for laws.Organized religion uses the bible to try to apply a blanket concept to an individualized philosophy (so to speak).. No sir.. And I wasn't even trying to discuss this from a religious standpoint. Dude, If I went totally along with the bible exactly as written, i'd be dead many times over and resting uncomfortably in Hell..
Keep laughing, because anyone with a discerning mind can see that the joke is on the believer, and the laughter is the laughter of madness.....directed by the demon of delusion.
Here's where I kind of agree with you and kind of don't. On a purely theoretical level it might be better to not teach "religion" per se, but eventually it will have to be explored as to just "why" something is wrong. And the real danger is that we wind up with the sort of relative, values-free psychology that was so pop in the 90's where they still try to tell you that some things are wrong but they just can't tell you why. Why isn't pursued self-interest in the best interest of everybody? I don't know about Canadian history (I'm a bit ashamed to say) but in America that's called the "Wild West" mentality and tends to produce very much the same sort of environment.
Ethics can be taught without religion. Religion can be taught at home. If the only moral investigation we get is through religion we sometimes (not always), but sometimes end up with morally stunted adults who still don't understand why it's not right to hurt someone. We end up with gangs of youth like we have in both our countries with no sense of ethics beyond not getting caught.
And not ratting. Still, I think it's a stretch to lay that at the feet of religion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming gangs of thugs on religion. I'm just saying sometimes religion stunts moral development especially when individuals are never challenged because they are amongst like minded people. These are the people who ask me without God what's stopping me from killing anyone who bothers me. Surely we can agree that most if not all people in gangs are ethically and or morally immature. I think it would be better in help them develop a sense of right and wrong before they join a gang, get a gun, sell drugs and kill people.
I agree that it would absolutely be better to teach them right and wrong before they join a gang. You're opening up a whole raft of what if questions, though.
The "why" something is wrong is basic morals and ethics.. That has little to nothing to do with religion. The issue is that a lot of parents want their specific religion taught in schools where their children are indoctrinated with the whole "Do good or suffer the consequences of Hell" teaching
Basic morals and ethics do indeed have a lot to do with religion. Or whatever your ethical framework is.
I don't know. I keep hearing that there's this tidal wave of Christians just dying for school to teach the fear of hell a la' the priests from Ulysses (or maybe Portrait of the Artist, I forget which one I actually read.) I haven't met these people. Most of the Christians I know try to give a more balanced view of the Bible and what God expects from us and why.Well, of course there are those who feel that any religious viewpoint whatsoever, whether left of yours or right of mine, is unbalanced. But I mean balanced between the love of God and the majesty of God.
Hear is the problem, you and others think you must be good for God. Be good or get punished, be good and be loved. What happens when these children are raised like that then join a gang and no longer have the fear of God in them? They don't need to be good for anything. They don't need to be good. They need to be taught to be good without religion first or at the very least along side. How many gang members were raised by Christians?
But that's a false comparison. How many of the gang members never experienced Christianity? How many of them got significant resistance to any form of spiritual teaching from an early age? It's overly simplistic. For example, Gangsta X was raised by his mother and grandmother, both God-fearing Christians. They took him to church every Sunday. His father took off when he was a kid, or perhaps never was actually there. He's in a church full of women and he wants a male role-model. They're all out on the street. Momma works two jobs to make ends meet, Grandma is old and tired and the neighborhood has three different gangs trying to claim turf. He spends increasing amounts of time on the street, committing progressively more serious crimes. He doesn't need religion. He doesn't need no woman telling him what to do. The preacher is just living in his church (if he's any good) and doesn't know anything about "real life."
So yeah, the kid was, in the barest technical sense, "raised by Christians" but in reality you could stick almost any adjective into it and the result would be the same. His Christian experience was practically nil. And his "need to be good to be loved" is still the same, he's just redefined what he considers to be good in order to win the love of the gang instead of his mother or God.Correct, that's exactly what I was saying. That's why ethics should be taught in school. If all they are getting from Christianity is be good or pay then it's not working. I know Christianity has more to offer, but if they are not getting it then teaching them why they should not harm others is a better option. Ethics can be taught with or without religion.
Okay. I see your point. There's still wider questions, gut I do understand your basic point.
Not really, religions are all about reward/punishment systems, not morals and ethics.
Not all believers hold belief or look at reward/punishment.
Not really. Religions are about ways to be closer to God, or whatever deity. Rewards and punishments are part of it, as they are part of any ethics or morals system, but religion is also about history, culture, relationships and how you define the worth of humans and why.
So few words, so much nonsense.
Whatever deity? How many gods do you believe exist besides your own? Have you asked Him that question in your conversations? Does God stutter when He talks?
Saying that rewards and punishments are part of ethics and moral systems is partially right in that they are part of most religious systems, and of course that has evolved into societies.
But, religions have shown us that reward punishment systems don't work and do little more than cause and invoke a lot of punishment and few rewards.
Ethics and morals are about understanding the reasons why one behaves a certain way, not be told to behave a certain way, or else.
No, religion is not about history, history is about history, religions are about how people behaved back then and the myths and superstitions they followed.
It's not really about culture either, but about retaining a culture of tribes and the fear and intolerance associated.
Religions don't define our worth, we define our own worth as individuals and we do it not to gain some petty reward or avoid an eternal punishment proclaimed from some medieval myth, but instead, we do it to evolve into the compassionate, thinking and understanding beings we have the potential to become.
Our brains have been growing that branch of evolution for generations already, let's not let them down by getting mired in superstitious mumbo jumbo.When you speak that has been my general experience, yes.
Of all the times you have taken what I said and worked to shoehorn it into whatever point you think you're making, this is one of the top. I'm talking about religions in general. You know very well that I believe in the God of the Bible. Any attempts to question that are just arguing for it's own sake.
In the abstract that's true, but an ethical system, a way of behaving in a way that one believes to actually be ethical, involves rewards and punishments. Your statement about religion having "shown us that reward punishment systems don't work" could just as easily be applied (and has often been applied) to systems of civil law which attempts to coerce ethical behavior out of those who don't perform it for other reasons. Yet crime soars.
Leaving that bit about "myths and superstitions" alone for a moment, I believe you just defined history. So I am still correct.
Many people both within and without various religions treat it exactly that way and I will say again, as I've said before, that it is a failure of imagination. You do try to find how an ancient ethics system would apply to modern situations but it is just as incorrect to decide that it is an iron straight-jacket as it is to decide that it really is meaningless or even false.
Correct. God defines our worth. An admirable goal, even if the understanding of the impetus is again faulty.
I agree about the mumbo jumbo. We should acknowledge the existence of God, the ultimate reality.You claim to converse with the God of the Bible. Anything you say is obviously going to be suspect.
Religions in general all have gods. Yes, you believe in your god, but do you believe in all the other gods in all the other religions? No, you don't. In fact, your religion has taught you to be intolerant towards those who don't share your god, so you reject them all.
Yes, that is what your religion teaches you, although it's a crock. Reward punishment systems fail simply because the individual has no clue as to the reasons for acting ethical and moral, other than they have been told to act that way, or else.
Are you talking civil or criminal law? Civil law is not about crime.
Of course, criminal law is there for punishment, not rewards. And, it is there for those who don't understand why they should act ethical and moral, hence the increased crime rates in highly religious areas.
No, it is a failure of the religion.
YOUR God defines our worth?
No problem, show your God to us and we'll be happy to acknowledge His existence and embrace that ultimate reality.
We await your lack of mumbo jumbo in fulfilling that requirement.You are stretching. Your ability to impute whatever suits you to me or any other religious person is, indeed, breathtaking but it more often causes me to laugh than anything else. That you have it so wrong is not surprising in light of your bull-headed insistance on repeatedly doing so.
Again, you're missing what I'm saying, although vis a vis rewards systems you may be focused on one particular point and maybe I'm not expressing what I'm trying to say the right way.
No, it's a failure of imagination. It's not the religion that failed, it was the application of and the ability of the applier (or in some instances the person who delights in accusing the appliers) to properly grasp and apply it.
God created us in His image, so yes, He does.
You supply more than enough mumbo jumbo for both of us.
Lots of people talk to God, by the way. And as far as my "claiming to converse with God," I get the distinct feeling that yet again you have missed the actual point in favor of something you think you can flog me with. "Think" being the operative word.I know what you're saying, but it's a crock.
Baloney. That's a fallacy because it invokes an authority over the religion, which is only supported by scriptures and not any individual, such as yourself.
That invokes several fallacies. Of course, they can pretend to talk with gods, like everyone else who makes that claim, but it's only make believe.
The point is you claim to talk with God. We both know that's bogus."Make believe."
I think you've just said it all.
And I was right, you do just like to fight.Ah, there's that phrase again.
Tell me something, would it really cripple your self-worth so badly to simply admit that I'm not lying? I might be wrong, but I'm not telling a deliberate falshood. Why are you so hung-up on getting me to admit something that everyone else (even those who disagree with me) can see is not true?A lie is a lie whether it is deliberate or not.
Of course, you couldn't care less about valid statements like that. You are too busy trying to make sense out of nonsense.....by any means necessary.I almost got angry at you, but the inherent humor in your humorlessness just overwhelmed me. Thank you! I needed a good laugh!
Your dishonestly has nothing to do with me.
Yes, you are, and you know it, too.
If you can't be honest here, then what is the point?Good point. If actually being honest is disallowed by others and downplayed at every opportunity, when all you want to do is be honest and have honest discussion, then what is the point?
I have a few questions that came to mind. Who establishes the moral code that is to be encouraged at school. Who establishes the moral code that is taught at home? What if both sets of moral codes conflict, what then?
Both should be established and encouraged by the parents, of course.
So the moral code at school and at home should be encouraged by the parents? I'm missing the answer (wouldn't be the first time) but what happens if the moral codes at school conflict since there are so many parents represented at school by their children?
You're going to have explain that, I have no idea what you're talking about. What moral codes at school? How are they different?
Penny asked the question of who should establish the moral code at to be taught at school and who should establish the moral code taught at home. Your reply was that both should be established by the parents. So My question basically what happens if there is a conflict of what the moral code should be at school if the parents of the students cannot agree on what should be taught?
The parents would usually discuss their differences and come to a decision. Of course, whatever moral code is taught does not just apply to school or at home, but everywhere.
But what happens if the parents cannot come to a decision?
Then, they made a big mistake getting married and having kids.
However, I can't imagine two intelligent people getting together to discuss something and not coming to an agreeable decision.
Perhaps, your story only holds water when it comes to intelligence.I haven't told a story.. I was just pushing thought to see how you would respond.. I categorically agree with you regarding ethics and the teaching of them
But then again if we are talking about ethics in school being taught by the parents, Then considering the number of students in school then all of the school parents would have to come to a consensus regarding what is acceptable to be taught in schoolUnfortunately, many parents have been indoctrinated by their religions that don't teach morals, but instead teach reward/punishment systems that fail in reality and usually contradict actual morals.
We can see this in spades right here on these forums. Read about prayers being answered, as one example,. and you'll have plenty of contradictions.
And if the parents have questionable morals what then?
Then this leads to the question of what is determined as "questionable"? We all have morals that might be deemed questionable to those who have a different set of morals
They will still teach them to their children and then they will have questionable morals.
Break the cycle.
Good question.
I think the moral code should be a reflection of just laws, which means that they are conducive to a civil society. Things like honesty and empathy, for instance. And most of the time, it's just following the law, with the exception of laws such as segregation, denied suffrage, slavery...
But on some issues such as "age of consent" or "polygamy" then, there can be conflict with school and parents...according to what the parent sees as acceptable. And, on these issues, who is to really say which side is morally correct? Tough one, but that's when the state usurps the "morals" of the parents.You mentioned "just" laws. Who would be the one who determines what laws are just and by whose definitions should that term reflect?
Another very tough question. Ergo, Whereas some people might see inequality of income as unjust, others might see it as just reward for their diligence. It looks like we can't get a real consensus on this question. Wow! I guess that's why conflicts always ends up being settled politically/legally.
And the political and legal systems at times aren't "just" as depending on what side of the judgment you are on.. LOL
Although it appears that the basic mores are universal...and that could be conjecture, as well, there are many that are only distinct to certain groups or societies, or countries.
............But
I have to believe that those behaviors that have made it possible for us to evolve to this level are the behaviors that are to be considered when assessing the value of each code.With this statement, You have pretty much echoed (more or less) the same mindframe that a lot of believers hold. There are basic morals that are written in the bible (once you get past all the silly and irrational myths, tyrannical demands of worship as written in the book, the slaughter and sacrifice). Most (if not all) of the bad stuff that happens may not always appeal to our own personal set of morals, but if whatever happens was in conjecture with whatever the laws were at that time, then the laws must be accepted and obeyed.
Similar to the legal system. If the punishment for murder is the death penalty, I may not agree with it, but i still have to follow the laws that were laid out at that time..
The real disconnect is that a lot of believers still hold to the archaic laws that no longer apply as if they are still in application today. Or they pick which ones still apply and which ones don't as depending on their own personal desires. and also think that the morals that only apply to them should apply to everyone.. Much like the laws in some other countries
You have demonstrated another reason why I respect atheists. you have similar ideals (in SOME areas) to a lot of believers but you have effectively (in your own way) picked out the best principles from the Bible (which I know some is basic "common" sense and can also be found in secular books) And tossed out the rest of the foolishness contained therein.
I'm not sure how well I explained this, but I hope you got my pointHere's the problem Deepes, the bible teaches don't do this or that or you will get punished, which works fine for a 7 year old, but not for an 18 year old. This is why I get adults asking me what's stopping me from killing someone if I'm not afraid of God. Some people never develop past this stage because they aren't taught to think or have compassion, they are taught they have everything they need. I don't think we can easily help these adults mostly because of there indoctrination, but we can help there children by teaching ethics in school.
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Koh … opment.htmThe bible teaches don't do this or you get punished, I agree. I also agree with the fact of the difference between the effects on a 7 year old vs an 18 year old. But now I have a question, for kids, The bible teaches don't do this, or you get punished.. The laws passed by the Government say the same thing... So What's the difference (OTHER THAN THE WHOLE HELLFIRE AND ETERNAL THING)? Then again, the death penalty is a onetime punishment that lasts forever because once you die, you can't come back (unless the Hindu religion is right about that whole reincarnation thing)
What happens when the kid gets away with something without getting punished. They do more stuff.
Click on the link.I did click on the link and read it.. Same with some adults. They get away with something and they keep doing it until they get caught and punished or until they find something else to do
Because they haven't developed ethically. They haven't been taught why to not harm, only if you do you'll be punished.
So what I'm hearing you say (and correct me if I'm wrong), but you don't think that children aren't being taught ethics at home in Christian households?
If the parents haven't developed ethically then yes. If they are teaching their children to behave because God is watching and punishing then yes. We see this kind of behaviour when people are isolated in a group that doesn't challenge them ethically. When people think the only reason to not kill someone is because you might get caught then yes. Both Canada and the US have gang problems. Kids who were raised as Christians, but don't care. Why is this? Stunted moral development. If they stop believing in God or don't care, they are left with not knowing right from wrong.
Whose standards determine whether the parents are developed ethically or not?
Elaborate on this thought for me before I respond so I make sure I understand what you mean
Well, People not killing because they might not get caught has as much to do with the legal system as religion because of the ramifications of getting caught that is set out by the law... Or are you referring to the fact of not being taught not to kill simply because killing is wrong?If ethics are taught in school it doesn't matter how ethically developed the parents are.
In the Kohlberg's states of Moral development punishment and obedience is stage 1 out of six. Basically the moral development of a 12 year old. I know adults like this as I've stated before, it's not good enough and it's not working. Children need to be taught why it's wrong to hurt people. They need to be taught what's socially acceptable.
Yes, right and wrong.
But how would the schools decide which ethics would be taught? I'm sure that would have to be passed through the parents of the students so that those parents can approve whether or not they want the ethics taught to their child
I understand you on the other pointsWhat ethics to be taught? Ethics is a branch of philosophy that involves the concepts of right and wrong conduct. Meta, normative, applied and descriptive ethics can be taught without offending any religion. Many people confuse ethics with religion and fail to treat ethics as it's own concept.
I agree that ethics can be taught without religion, but, like religion, ethics in itself is a subjective philosophy based on who is examining the issue.. What is considered ethical to one person may not be ethical to another.. Even if it is generally agreed upon by a majority
Everything is subjective. Math, language, science can be seen as subjective. Understanding not to harm others is not subjective, sure there are those who enjoy killing others, but that is what we want to avoid. Ethics is not as subjective as science for example. Developing morals is like learning math, we learn in stages. We need to get these kids past stage 1 and at least up to stage 4. Gang kids are only in stage 1 or 2.
Stage 1: Might Makes Right. QUESTIONS: What must I do to avoid punishment? What can I do to force my will upon others?
Stage 2: The Egoist. QUESTIONS: What's in it for me? What must I do to avoid pain, gain pleasure?
Stage 3: Good Boy/Good Girl. QUESTIONS: What must I do to be seen as a good boy/girl (socially acceptable)?
Stage 4: The Good Citizen. QUESTIONS: What if everyone did that?
Stage 4.5: The Cynic. QUESTIONS: Why should I believe anything? Hippies, concerned with themselves.
Stage 5: The Philosopher/King. QUESTIONS: What is the just thing to do given all the circumstances? What will bring the most good to the largest number of people?
Stage 6: The Prophet/Messiah. QUESTIONS: What will foster life in its fullest for all living beings? What is justice for all?even at stage 4 it is dependent on what and how it is being taught.. What if everyone did that? then it would become the norm.. Just because it is considered normal still doesn't make it specificaslly right.. Case in point.. religion..
No, normal is good, killing people not good. You're having trouble separating religion and ethics. Philosophy is taught at the high school and university level. It's not religion.
Ah, Rad, I thought you understood me better than that. I am separating the three (religion, ethics, and philosophy). The only similarity is that a lot of it is based on the perspective of the person looking at it. other than that there are vast differences, especially when you add organized religion to the mix
By the way, I agree with teaching ethics in school because it will give a good solid foundation of how to live the best life.. But then again, Teaching ethics would also lead to a teaching of consequences for not exhibiting ethical behavior
Ideally yes. However, herein lies the dilemma we must all face about morals. Morals are not always a reflection of just laws. Just laws differ from country to country. A civilized society in your country may be different to our idea of civilized. Families too may have different moral codes.
Assuming there were a global moral code that was fair and useful and everyone decided that they could easily adhere to such morals. The individual still has a choice.
Are the parents responsible if the individual chooses to not follow the moral code? Is society responsible if the individual chooses to not follow the moral code? Why does an individual not choose to conduct oneself in a way that is morally correct?
Perhaps we will never know why one chooses what they choose. All we know is that they chose for better or worse and we as a society learn from it or we don't.Very well stated, and eye opening.
Really great to see you Penny.Thank you. Always great to see you too!
Legally, yes, to a certain age in any given society, that is, when society legally deems someone becomes an adult, then they are responsible.
The legal system is set up for societies to judge and convict those who don't.
That question has multiple answers.I was not talking legally. That goes without saying. I am talking morally. Do you as a parent or a mentor assume responsibility for an individuals action even though you have tried to instil morality, or tried to set an example of morality?
So since you assume responsibility for someone else's actions because you tried to instill morality, does this mean that if your shild commits murder you will take the sentence yourself?
I think you missed the point.
It's not really possible to discuss "morality" without discussing the root of that morality. Yeah, when kids are five and six of course, but when they get to be teens the more curious will start asking, and the teachers are going to tell them something whether I agree with it or you agree with it or they made it up out of thin air. It's not about being slighted.
And no, religion does not belong in the garbage.And the root of that morality is evolution.
Maybe it is you who missed the point, Chris. That post that I responded to was about other religions getting more attention than Christianity. Since that is causing people, like you, to feel slighted, the problem would be alleviated by throwing ALL religions completely out of school.I've never understood how evolution, which is supposed to promote the idea that the most physically fit will be the ones who procreate the most and pass on the best and hardiest genes, was compatible with caring for the weakest among us, which is a specifically religious idea in antiquity and counterproductive for good evolutionary and genetic husbandry. I'm not saying that evolutionists lack compassion, I'm just not able to see how watching out for the weaklings is a specifically evolutionary concept.
It's hard to miss your point, subtlety is not your strong suit (nor is it really mine.) I don't agree with it. I don't argue that religion has no place in the school, nor am I whining that my religion is "being slighted." I'm just pointing out that what some people think is being accomplished is not being accomplished.Where do you get that ridiculous notion? And, where do you get the idea there's compassion in religion?
Compassion in religion is readily apparent to anyone who cares to actually look at it without preconceived notions that it is inherently incompassionate.
I get the "ridiculous" notion about evolution by reading what people, both who believe and who don't believe in it, say about it. I'm not equating "evolution" and "social darwinism," I'm not saying that evolution is an ethical framework unto itself. I am saying that, according to what I have read and heard since I was a little kid, for evolution to work it depends on the most robust members of any given species being the most active procreators, and these are generally the more self-centered members. It's only in recent times that some theorists think evolution has stopped or possibly even regressed because of advances in health care. And genetic theories accounting for homosexuality and compassion have posed unique complications for genetic theory (it's how Dawkins originally made his name, if I remember correctly.)
I'm always open to being educated.Again, survival of the individual is connected to the survival of the tribe. Compassion is required for the tribe to survive. Watch the compassion any tribe of animals show each other. Ever see what elephants do when one of their own dies? Crap my dog has compassion.
In my opinion, all the time you regard our human species as something "special," and more "intelligent" than other species, then you can stick various characteristics on to us and say, "God made us special."
Survival of our species does indeed follow an evolutionary path, especially as we speak now. It's only because we are living it out now, and unable to take a wider view, that evolution seems to have stalled. If you were able to look back on the present time from, say, 5000 years hence, I feel sure you would see the path that evolution had taken us.
For example, look at the group of people who are over-represented in fatal or major trauma casualties from road traffic crashes. If that group consists mainly of young active men, who have not the instinctive survival skills to take precautions and avoid crashes; and they have not yet produced children; and they are either killed, or maimed to such extent that they cannot reproduce; then that lack of instinctive survival skills will be mitigated against. On the other hand, those who do have such skills and learn to survive long enough to attract a female and reproduce, they will pass on genes which have the chance to become predominant.
I suggest that given a long enough time span you would be able to see the evolutionary trend. Taking too short a view of things will give you a false impression.I'm not sure why I got that speech, but you're right. People who traveled away from the equator have developed lighter skin. People of the far north have developed shorter limbs to help prevent frost bite.
That's an interesting point but wouldn't that be balanced or even overwhelmed by the large number of peoples who will never breed or who will not pass along optimal genes, those with "defects?"
(Obviously I am pro-life and am all in favor protecting and nurturing such people. Two of my children are special needs and I would give my life for them. I'm simply attempting to understand the line of reasoning here.)
As the Western world becomes more heavily populated with couch potatoes and the number of people with genetic defects continues to rise (a controversial topic, I'm well aware) would that not dilute or even cancel your point about young men who lack survival instincts crashing cars?I understand your point. I have a so that is considered special needs to so I have to be extra protective of him too
I don't know about the "balance" ultimately. Sure there is a large proportion of the population, across the world, that will never procreate. There are mutations and genetic faults which occur, naturally, and those which prove disadvantageous to survival will obviously die out sooner or later.
I am guessing here, but presumably natural selection is still at work, according to the local conditions and circumstances of where a human lives.
Our modern technology and knowledge has led to the survival of many genes which don't benefit us in the long term. If we see a wide-scale shortage of food, or water looming, then certain traits will help individuals to survive, while other traits will lead to people dying. What would your own chances of survival be like if you were suddenly left standing without a house, without a supermarket down the street, without fuel to carry you further to where food was available?
There will be a similar selective advantage/disadvantage according to climate change. Supposing it is night time, it's cold, raining heavily, and you need some warmth. You need to cook some food because yours (or your family's) bellies are empty. You don't have a match, or a cigarette lighter, or an electrical element that can light your fire? Magnifying glass? No, it's midnight. Rub two sticks together? NO, everything is soaking wet.
Our human species is going to have to fight for survival! We will HAVE to evolve in many ways to meet the changes..... and I do not accept that any god is going to save us. We might have to step back into basic ways of life, re-invent the wheel maybe.Wow. You really do believe in the Apocalypse (figuratively speaking) don't you?
Again that expression "believe in," Chris. It's not a religion with me. Just that from purely logically looking at our human world, it seems inevitable that we will grow our own demise.
Don't be quite so literal. I don't think any real thinking person believes that things will not get worse, whatever the outcome is. But your vision of the future sounded to me like the kind of thing they used to have in those old post-nuclear war movies.
That seems insufficient, though. It really doesn't explain the love of a mother or father for their offspring, even when that love would be counterproductive to that individual or even the tribe.
Sure it does and no it's not counterproductive. Children wouldn't survive without that love. Ever try to reach into a bear or wolves den and snatch the little ones? We are not the only ones who love. What a family of elephants care for the young or morn the dead. I can't think of any mammals that don't love their children. It's necessary for survival.
I understand what you're saying, I don't think I expressed myself well. I'm talking about those situations where a mother (or sometimes father) will willingly sacrifice the greater good (themselves, their family, their tribe, society) for an offspring who is decidedly antisocial and would sacrifice those parents in a heartbeat for their own selfish desires. I don't think you find many such situations among the wolves.
You are so wrong with that one. A few years ago in the ravines not far from where I am a coyote shoot after it was displaying strange behaviour. It had been watch for a year or so, but this was not the same. It turned out to be protecting it's mate who just had pups in a den a few yards from where the coyote was shot. Every see how buffalo protect their young? Compassion is what helps small tribes survive.
aren't compassion and survival of the species two different things?
animals can have survival of species response but not compassion...people can have both. Some animals can learn from humans to care for humans and other animals because I believe their consciousness does evolve, but they can't show true compassion because it is a human act of conscience... true compassion can only come from a conscious human...though some humans are not as conscious as others (i.e. when they are violent and abusive or murder, etc)That's really funny if your kidding and not so much if your not. A male coyote protecting his mate and cubs is not compassion, but survival. If he had no compassion and only wanted to survive he would have fled and survived. Off hand I can't think of one mammal that doesn't protect and raise it's young. How many dolphins have saved people in the water showing compassion? How many pets want to help during an injury.
Now, that is some useful information. I am inspired by the courage of the lowly coyote.
I still don't think I'm making myself clear. Let me think about it because we're not arguing the same thing, here.
I think we are arguing the same thing. You are stating that compassion is uniquely human and the result of religion, while I'm showing you all mammals have compassion. Notice getitrite's video?
No I didn't, and no, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about specific instances of a kind of compassion in human history. Saying that animals have the same kind of family or tribal compassion that humans have is not germane to my point at all.
It is tantamount to your point considering it nullifies the concept of God given traits to humans.
That doesn't even make sense.
Reference my previous post.
Chris, I suggest you are simply trying to assert the human's superiority over other animals.
In reality, each species of living organism adopts the traits which serve its needs for survival. We humans have developed the intellect, our tools and our social structures to serve our needs for survival.
We could not survive, at least in a generation or two of development, in the jungle conditions that a gorilla makes his/her home. They are of the primate group of apes, just as we are. The gorilla could not survive in our living conditions, without the help of humans.
(Maybe if we improved our relationships with the gorillas, they would be happy to help US survive in their homeland. The aboriginal peoples of Australia and North America would have help us Europeans to live in the Outback and Prairies, if we had not been so blind and bloody self-possessed. But, then, we had our god on our side didn't we? So there was no question of us stooping to their level! )That last part is valid, and the history of white people forcibly colonizing and often exterminating indigenous peoples is not a pretty one. Although I've made this point before, and in greater detail, it wasn't Christianity that was responsible for it. But it was an excuse used by those who practiced it, or thought they were. Societies without it were just as bloody but didn't use it as an excuse.
You may be more directly answering the point I keep trying to make but it raises the question: If compassion between "higher" classes and "lower" classes, which history shows to be learned painfully and over long time periods, could be shown to be an evolutionary trait necessary for the survival of the species, why is it so often tied to the Judeo-Christian religion, not (apparently) being widely practiced (or practiced at all) in developed societies that didn't have it?What an absurd way to rationalize your psychotic religion's bloody past. How disturbing.
It didn't look like he was rationalizing it.. I see that he acknowledged that Christianity had a secondary role in some people doing what they wanted to do anyway.. Don't get me wrong, There have been several wars fought in the name of Christianity. I think in this instance he was more referring to the wars where Christianity was actually secondary
And here's the other one who only waits for the opportunity to make his political statements, seeming to believe that they are just so self-evident that actual proof or even a real discussion is not only unnecessary and counterproductive, but somehow beneath him.
I think it also worth pointing out here that most actual missionaries make great attempts to learn the native language and culture and adapt to it, rather than forcing the native culture to be subsumed to Western cultural normatives. Christianity itself is NOT specifically Western, only the way we North Americans and Europeans practice it.
Sorry, but the lack of compassion taught in your religion has nothing to do with me.
But, you haven't really read about evolution yourself.
I doubt that, you haven't educated yourself on evolution, yet.I admit that you make every attempt to make sure you don't know what you're talking about with religion. So yes, in that respect it has nothing to do with you.
I ask questions. Those who answer me are appreciated. Those who sneer are jerks.
The survival of a small tribe requires the health of the whole tribe. Compassion has always been a part of humanity as it's part of most other creatures. Some however are only compassionate for their own family or offspring. Do you really think people lacked compassion before Jesus?
I don't recall ever saying that. Nor do I know or know of anyone who has.
I think you did, unless I misread this...
"a specifically religious idea" We feel compassion because we needed it to survive.You did misread it. I was not saying that compassion started with Jesus. But compassion as a societal concept has often been tied to religion, I mean compassion of upper classes for lower classes.
It's only seems tied to religion, but it not, compassion is a part of human nature. I know Jesus was all about compassion, but compassion is everywhere and in every mammal. It's not only for the religious or humans.
We seem to be arguing two different things. I'm talking about human history. History has shown that compassion between classes was not widespread (classes, races, ethnic groups, etc.) before the rise of Christianity. Nor, obviously, did Christianity automatically increase this in humanity as a whole but that's because the thinking was not correctly understood nor applied. The Bible shows that "tribal" or "clan" or "family" compassion predated Christianity and even Judaism but history from that time shows that the "low classes" were often seen as (and treated like) cattle, the property of the ruler and the ruler could do with as they pleased.
Yes, in fact, Christianity was a complete failure, considering it culminated in centuries of bloody wars and millions of deaths. Thinking was never applied, that was the problem.
Except of course that it wasn't and thinking is indeed involved and an assertion such as yours requires a willful ignorance of a lot of facts.
Rather hypocritical of anyone who claims to converse with gods to make judgments of what is willful ignorance of facts.
You know, I don't actually get tired of letting you make my point for me, but I have a life. Later.
Does that life include making up childish stories on internet forums about conversing with gods?
It certainly appears that way.
A Troubled Man, I apologize if you have already answered this question as I have not read through all of the discourse of this forum. Where do you think morality is (or should be) derived? What do you believe to be the moral 'constant'... what do you base your morals upon? Thanks!
Through evolution, just like so many other things are derived.
That could be difficult to explain considering you don't know anything about evolution.
Mental health issues and theism are too separate things. Evil or random violence is going to occur in this world whether we have a religious system or not. The last thing I think on anyone's mind when these type of tragedies occur is "prayer should be reinstated in our schools." We grieve instead for the loss of life. If you feel that way as a parent you have the option to home school your children. Those who believe or don't believe in God do not need self-proclaimed promoters of faith or lack thereof. Bad things happen. A good example of this was when a man opened fire at a Amish school in my area. Children were killed and the basis of the school was built on prayer. The families of the victims chose to forgive the perpetrator out of their theism the shooter picked up the gun as a result of a severe mental illness and rage.
I think that Huckabee was attempting to create a framework of safety. You are right about the difference between mental illness and theism (or lack thereof) but many people who are older remember a "better" time when school shootings didn't seem to happen every other week. Even if you don't agree with his conclusion it's hard to fault the man for wanting to create a safe environment for children.
I think Huckabee jumped in on this to try to stay politically relevant.... He failed
I don't doubt that a bit of the politician kicked in, but he's not in politics any more. He's an ordained Baptist preacher. I think it was at least mostly genuine.
With respect, that is all we need to know about Mr. Huckabee. It puts everything he says into perspective.
A nice dash of religion can be a very attractive tool in the hands of an erstwhile politician. People will actually get to believing in you.Some will. Some will not. My perspective on this is that there are a growing number of politicians who consciously reject religion as part of their repertoire (John McCain comes to mind) and declaring oneself a Christian doesn't always help (it sure didn't help Oliver North.)
politics mixed in with a potentially tainted view of the events.. same difference
LOL Maybe a little. But I notice you didn't necessarily disagree..LOL J/k
Okay. I disagree. I'm not saying that Huckabee is totally pure on this, but I don't think he was simply grandstanding either.
Not when folks here claim they have conversations with God.
Is that what all delusional people say? They can talk to God in their head, but if you claim to talk to Fred or Marry in your head your crazy.
There are many voices. Some are more reliable than others.
You mean get Marry'd to Jesus in your head? lol
Related Discussions
- 53
Religion and the Presidental Races
by Dan Harmon 8 years ago
For some reason I've been getting emails from Mike Huckabee, running for President. They include such statements as:"I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the constitution, and the citizens of the United States.""I will stand for the sanctity of all human life from the...
- 27
Do you believe that some religious people are to blame for, more people becoming
by Nichol marie 8 years ago
Do you believe that some religious people are to blame for, more people becoming atheists?Maybe people feel as though they are not ever good enough not because of God but because of other people condemning everything and give up on pursuing to be "Good"
- 315
why do people, after failing at religion, blame god?
by hanging out 13 years ago
God never lets people down, he may want something of you and you did not give it to him, therefore you are in the wilderness holding onto what god needs to get rid of, slowly you fall away and before you know it, you are outside the presence of god in you. And now all that is left is bitter hatred...
- 652
Stop blaming guns and Palin for the Arizona shooting.
by LBMod 13 years ago
The tragedy this past week in Arizona has drummed up all sorts of emotions and fears in the American public as well it should. What happened to the victims of that heinous act of senseless violence is horrifying, some might say unacceptable. And while I’m sure we can all agree that it was...
- 146
Teaching God in Schools.
by Mark 12 years ago
This is probably going to be a very touchy subject, but I am curious to see the responses. There are many who want the creation story and God taught in school. I am curious, why does this need to be taught in academia? Are these topics not covered in Church or Sunday School anymore? Besides, who...
- 18
Can Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama in the next presidential election?
by Allen Donald 11 years ago
Can Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama in the next presidential election?Given that Romney is the front-runner, perhaps it's worth pondering.