201. Comment #178925 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 8:26 am

Mitchell Gilks: I'm beginning to wonder what doesn't prove god. Maybe they should start with that, it would surely be a shorter list.

"All truth is god's truth". Everything proves god. Simple!

Other Comments by riandouglas

202. Comment #178926 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 8:26 am

Irate, Rian, Quetz

To be fair, his argument was that

1. We know there is the phenomenon of meaning
2. This meaning is not the the physical string of ink-dots or pixels
3. Therefore the meaning is something no-physical
4. We grasp meaning
5. Therefore: We grasp something non-physical with out minds
6. Therefore, the mind is something non-physical

This is a little different from what you outlined, and at least slightly more reasonable (of course you couldn't infer god from that even if it was true)

Problem is that the inference from 5 to 6 is inconclusive, that 1 and 2 provide a false dichotomy, which makes the inference of 3 unwarranted and thereby renders the entire argument false.

Other Comments by MPhil

203. Comment #178927 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 8:33 am

I agree with MPhil that Artful hasn't established that "meaning" is non-physical.

Even if he does, however, that just proves the existence of at least one abstract concept, which we can add to "truth", "justice" and "zinginess".

And that didn't prove the existence of God in the thirteenth century, and it still doesn't today.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

204. Comment #178930 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 8:41 am

Exactly, even if the existence of something non-physical was established as a necessary conclusion of what we know about the world, that wouldn't be enough. He would first have to show why all the other infinite non-physical "explanations" are false and his is true - this is impossible because there can per definition be nothing to distinguish the coherent concepts of non-physical explanations in terms of truths, since there can be no evidence of which of them is correct.

But as I said - no postulation of irreducible non-physical entities has any explanatory value, therefore even the position that says "I don't how this works, but I see that it works as a physical process" is more rational. Thankfully, we're far beyond that - we haver very detailed knowledge, and naturalistic theories that fit and explain this. See neural network research. See brain/computer interfaces.

Meaning, as I have shown, can be reduced to behavioural convention about the rules of usage of arbitrary symbols for informational content. And that assimilation, information-processing is something physical - that we know with absolute certainty. Our logical thinking and language-use is just vastly more complex and implemented in a very versatile physical system (our brain) that is connected to the world in various ways and has incredibly many internal connections.

There is no a priori problem for the naturalist.

But the theist has no explanations at all, since he postulates magic.

Other Comments by MPhil

205. Comment #178931 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 8:46 am

202. Comment #178926 by MPhil -

By 'meaning' do you mean information?

So we can process 'information' to understand it - perhaps even reach a decision?

And then physically act upon the 'decision' made as a result of this process?

So does my cat. When it's litter tray is overdue for replenishing, it craps on the rug in the hallway.

1. Information - smell and physical condition of tray.

2. Processing - take information in 1 and decide you don't like the tray.

3. Take the decision arrived at in 2 and decide that, given you want a crap, that you'd rather do it elsewhere.

4. Decide that the rug, being two rooms away from your litter tray and your food - and not the place you sleep, either - is the optimum place to crap.

5. Crap, then relax, feeling all nice and catty.

6. Do not get on knees and pray to Ceiling Cat to thank Him for the fortuitous positioning of the mat.

Srsly.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

206. Comment #178933 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 8:48 am

Artful_Dodger, do you have any response to the arguments which have been put forward to refute your belief in dualism?
If not, will you continue holding that belief, knowing that it is unjustified?
Will you accept that it is unjustified, and adopt a rational position?

Other Comments by riandouglas

207. Comment #178934 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 8:51 am

Well, in a way that's what I mean. I think meaning can be analysed on the level of synaptic activity as the processing of information - for example light coded by nerves into electrochemical signals. A certain pattern of neural stimulation is linked to a certain visual information, and is thereby representative of this. Add to that arbitrary symbols and a catalogue of rules how to use them (language and grammar, which your cat doesn't have) and you have what we call "meaning". The symbols are agreed upon (by convention) to refer to certain things and relations, which are there at the neural level as representation of information about the outside world and the neural structure that determines the way this information is processed.

Meaning thus is based on neural representation and usage and perception of arbitrary symbols to refer to the things we have concepts of (as groupings of neural-activation patterns).

Other Comments by MPhil

208. Comment #178936 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:10 am

MPhil, do you go along with the notion of "innate grammar"?

Or do you not want to get into a Chomsky discussion after what happened to the last one? And the 87 before that.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

209. Comment #178939 by irate_atheist on May 12, 2008 at 9:14 am

207. Comment #178934 by MPhil -

...(language and grammar, which your cat doesn't have)

I don't like to take any chances on this. Just in case it ever develops these abilities, I never allow it near a copy of the Daily Mail. You can never be too careful.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

210. Comment #178942 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 9:22 am

hungarianelephant,

I'd say that some very basic "modes of thought", ie the general "laws" of information processing in the brain are "innate" in a way, and reflected in various actual grammars, but I don't think Chomsky got it entirely right either, it's mostly convention and some underlying laws as the innate, evolutionary determined structural function of the brain's information-processing.

Other Comments by MPhil

211. Comment #178944 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 12, 2008 at 9:35 am

This is our planet if we don't use our reasoning skills to overcome our Darwinian instincts to avoid this outcome.

Which, according to Chris Hedges...is "a leap of faith."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080511_render_unto_darwin_that_which_is_darwins/

'Course, his arguments don't prove religious "leaps" are helpful in any way other than reinforcing an irrational belief...but what do I know? ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

212. Comment #178949 by Geoff on May 12, 2008 at 9:43 am

94. Comment #178693 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008


Popping briefly back to page 2...

Isn't that what the Jesuits used to say? Sounds like a very "rational" project! The premise of course is that atheism is the default "mechanism". Gradgrind would be proud of you. "Let's set up schools where children will be exposed to facts, pure and simple. We will have to careful of the reading material we admit onto the shelves! Encyclopedias and text-books with spadefuls of information. Fiction which depicts kids acceding to glory in sport and setting an example of achievement and supremacy. But at all costs we must keep them from reading the kind of fantasy that might encourage them to feel deep down that there might be more to existence than can be accounted for by the empirical sciences. No Lord of the Rings or anything of that ilk, unless it be heavily anotated by scholars who will be able to explain away any longings that such literature might awaken!

Not at all: quite the opposite in fact.

As long as they are taught to distinguish between fact and fiction.

I love LOTR, but I don't waste much time arguing that while Anduril, Lothlorien & Rivendell undoubtedly exist, the rings of power are metaphorical.

Your book is a poorly written collection of Bronze age myths, stories and superstitions, with less relevance to real life than Aesop's fables.

Other Comments by Geoff

213. Comment #178951 by Geoff on May 12, 2008 at 9:45 am

193. Comment #178914 by irate_atheist

'argumentum ad mistakum'

"argumentum ad erratum"?

Other Comments by Geoff

214. Comment #178955 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:54 am

irate, I should have thought that the Daily Mail would be ideal for the aforementioned problem with your cat (205).

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

215. Comment #178961 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 10:11 am

Peacebeuponme: in response to your question, morals may be shared but are still subjective.

Hitler most likely could say his philosophy about Jews was moral and it was shared by others, but it doesn't make it right.

Right and wrong are very subjective words, personally subjective to any one person's rationalizations, therefore useless in conversation regarding god, morals, good, bad, right, wrong, etc.

Many despise this reality, but right and wrong are clearly subjective. This is why many religious hate this idea because they want to take ownership of morality and you cannot do that if all morality is speculative, subjective and personal; it must come from god and be black/white in thinking.

Civil liberties are merely the freedoms to live your life as you choose without imposing anyone's personal subjective morals upon you in that pursuit of happiness.

Laws are (at least in the inception) created as consequences to someone who infringes on your civil liberty to live (not killing you) your life as you choose.

Almost like a mathematical formula, you should be able to apply the idea of civil liberty(freedom to choose) to the law and the consequence to someone who infringes on that freedom.

Where laws are legislating morality, regardless of whether it's shared or not, is the distortion that government has taken with regard to the Constitution.

Within the Constitution, the Bill of Rights isn't legislating morality, it's simply stating what your civil freedoms are within our society, in addition to how government should operate with regard to elections, etc.

It's very objective, as it should be and as all laws ought to be.

To reduce any particular potential law down to the simplest objective statement is best as it then embraces all human liberty.

Other Comments by scooternyc

216. Comment #178963 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:16 am

scooternyc
How do you then explain Terri's Law and Jeb Bush. Is that not an infringement on those rights? Genuine question.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

217. Comment #178969 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

scooternyc,

morals may be shared but are still subjective.

No, that's not quite right - the distinction is not just between subjective and objective, but between subjective, intersubjective and objective. Morals are intersubjective - and only in a metaphysical sense not objective. I think there may some underlying, general biological mechanisms which we share, and which thus accounts for the similarities between many moral codes in societies. But no, not in a metaphysical sense objective. We cannot even conceive what something like a metaphysically objective moral value would be. We cannot coherently and in sufficient detail conceive of such a supposed entity, not to mention that even if such things existed, we would not be able to know of them.

Civil liberties are merely the freedoms to live your life as you choose without imposing anyone's personal subjective morals upon you in that pursuit of happiness.

"Pursuit of happiness is a particularly American formulation and concept. I think a more universal one can be given. Also, I think it should be amended. Morality and the closely related issue of "just society" can be coherently conceived of rationally - by means of deliberating the situation of people in a hypothetical original position behind a veil of ignorance and extrapolating what the consensus would be - which is maximally fair, because of the veil of ignorance.

What we can extrapolate from this it is rationally justified to demand that every person is to be given the largest possible scheme liberties, rights and freedoms compatible with the same scheme for everyone else.

This also means that we can impose on the subjective morals of someone whose subjective morals lead that person to infringe the right to the above mentioned liberties of others. We cannot mandate thought or regulate it in an absolutist way. But we can suppress expression of subjective morality that deprives others of their freedoms etc.

What I'm saying is that the issues of political philosophy and jurisprudence (philosophy of law) are closely related to the issues of morality. "Justice" and "Fairness" for example. These need to be grounded in rationality itself. John Rawls has shown how to do this.


The proposed values are still only intersubjecive, not metaphysically objective, but they are rationally grounded. Scanlon wrote a wonderful tentative construction of contractualism in ethics. ("What we owe each other", based upon Rawls' theory as laid out in "A Theory of Justice", "Political Liberalism" and "Justice as Fairness - A Restatement")

Other Comments by MPhil

218. Comment #178973 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 10:26 am

Scooternyc. Ok I think we agree, but just use different words.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

219. Comment #178977 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:31 am

MPhil
What do you think about Plato's world of ideal forms. I think we both agree about Beauty and Morality but what about Mathematical?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

220. Comment #178980 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 10:37 am

215. Comment #178961 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 10:11 am

To reduce any particular potential law down to the simplest objective statement is best as it then embraces all human liberty.

The difficulty is in determining what is "simple".

The European Convention on Human Rights tried to lay down objective statements. But in an effort to keep it simple, it had to introduce "simple" qualifiers. The result, by any reasonable legal standard, is a mess, as a cursory googling of "UK Human Rights Act" will disclose. Some would go further and argue that the HRA is actually responsible for a reduction in the total amount of liberty in Britain. And seeing the way in which the cases on house arrest were argued, I'd have to have some sympathy.

217. Comment #178969 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

What I'm saying is that the issues of political philosophy and jurisprudence (philosophy of law) are closely related to the issues of morality. "Justice" and "Fairness" for example. These need to be grounded in rationality itself. John Rawls has shown how to do this.

In principle, yes.

What Rawls never properly demonstrated was why his thinking should lead to his particular model. For example, if you had a good chance of a very high standard of living, but a small chance of a short, miserable life, you might actually prefer this to an "everyone is only ok" model.

As a practical matter, it seems to me that all Rawls achieved was a shifting of the debate into particular terms. Furthermore, the Rawlsian model cares nothing for notions such as a priori individual liberty: it assumes a general social right to determine the general social order, based presumably on the consent of the majority.

It's a pretty hard sell.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

221. Comment #178982 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:40 am

Thoughtsoncommontoad,

Platonism is metaphysically compeltely untenable. It postulates non-physical entities with some connection to the real world. I think naturalism is a justified postition, so I think any Platonism is unwarranted. (I've given the arguments elsewhere - there too much ontological obscurity, too much metaphysical queerness, a huge epistemic problem and a host of other problems).

Mathematics is work with a formal system. Deterministic production and testing (proof-theory) of statements which are logically true. The entities are abstractions, which in turn are mental objects, which in turn are specific processes in the brain - and those are linked to the world via perception and via being a biological system that does information-processing, ie processing of information about the "outside" world as well as about itself (meta-level information processing). This accounts for the applicability of mathematics, since the brain and its structure follow the same "rules" of biology and physics as everything else, it's - I think - no wonder that a system that can process information that well can model quantity and properties of quantities, set theory, arithmetic and the whole of mathematics. It's the capacity to construct a formal system (a narrowly defined language-game with highly specific axioms, inference rules and statements) and that the structure of the information processing in the brain as a physical system reflects the laws that determine the behaviour of physical/biological systems.

The fact that we can go above applicable mathematics means only that the system is capable of modelling much more than what might be actually instantiated.

I am not sure the problem of universals is a real problem, but if it is, I think either a non-realist contructivism or trope nominalism are the best answers we have.

Other Comments by MPhil

222. Comment #178985 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:50 am

What Rawls never properly demonstrated was why his thinking should lead to his particular model. For example, if you had a good chance of a very high standard of living, but a small chance of a short, miserable life, you might actually prefer this to an "everyone is only ok" model.

As a practical matter, it seems to me that all Rawls achieved was a shifting of the debate into particular terms. Furthermore, the Rawlsian model cares nothing for notions such as a priori individual liberty: it assumes a general social right to determine the general social order, based presumably on the consent of the majority.

I have to disagree here.

Of course some specifics he postulates are not uniquely determined by the method of the original position beyond a veil of ignorance with the conception of the person as in principle social and capable of having a conception of the good. But the process is rationally grounded and does lead to specifics, and I think a quite (though not completely) specific codex can be derived from the method Rawls outlined. In fact, I just recently wrote a paper on how in a society conforming to the standards rationally derivable from the original position, beyond the veil of ignorance with the conception-of-a-politica-person that Rawls endorses, certain religious practices are incompatible with the priority of right and the first principle of justice. The latter is, I think very much a proper inference from the method outlined above.

And it's not based on consent of the majority, the general structure, the constitutional structure if you will is determined not by consent of the actual majority, but consent of hypothetical, perfectly capable but entirely equal persons. With this, the fairness (understood in the egalitarian way) is actually guaranteed to be maximized.

I don't subscribe to every specific detail of Rawls conception, but to the underlying liberal contractualism (from the hypothetical original position) I do subscribe. It is the most determinate rationally grounded way of solving the task at hand we know - and I think it's a very tenable position. Not a hard sell at all.

Other Comments by MPhil

223. Comment #178989 by Quine on May 12, 2008 at 10:53 am

It has been interesting to watch the changing nature of the discussion on these threads over the last year or so. It reminds me of a biological system developing an immune response. Lately, we do not see so many come here and spew forth scripture as if the words had magic power; those who try find out quickly that we have heard it all before, and have posters much better educated in exegesis than they, and find out that ridicule heaped upon their "magic words" causes them significant cognitive dissonance not easily relieved by a soupçon of justification from their imaginary friend.

Now I see we have developed antibodies to the next level of attack, tried and true (not) theological arguments. Last year, many of our infidels did not know the difference between so called economic materialism and actual philosophical materialism. Today, when some believer tries to pass off substance dualism, they are stung by philosophical antibodies in a gang-up. I can't help but be pleased.

This brings me to the issue of C. S. Lewis as we saw earlier in this thread (also, the reliance upon Lewis by Francis Collins still irritates me). I know Hitch went after him a bit in his book, but I would like to find a good solid philosophical drubbing that we can drop like a wet blanket over these folks with their burning fervor as to the proof of the transcendent. It is not something that a current professional philosopher would likely consider worth spending any time doing (the actual refutation), and I don't see myself spending much time searching and gathering what has been done, but if someone already knows where this is, I think it would be helpful to have.

Other Comments by Quine

224. Comment #178990 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 10:58 am

MPhil, maybe you could enlighten us as to which religious practices you consider to be incompatible with the first principle of justice?

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

225. Comment #178996 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:15 am

Artful,

any expression of religious conviction that deprives others of liberty or the faculty to make use of it.

An example would be children that are indoctrinated through mental torture (You will suffer a painful and excruciating fate of eternal, infinite torture if you do not believe the right things and do the right things. If you care about anyone, you have to see to it that they believe the right things and do the right things, too - or they will suffer eternal, infinite torture.)

Actually teaching this, literally (remember that small children cannot grasp the concept of metaphor) is an act of mental cruelty. Just like locking children up in a house and saying that the vicious dog will rip them apart and feast on their guts if they ever try to escape or do not do as their master requires.

Basically, some of what we have seen in Jesus Camp and a lot of what we have seen in "Baby Bible Bashers", especially the kid visiting New York with his parents.

When kids are indoctrinated into a specific position that does not specifically include having them develop the ability to fully recognize and make us of their liberty of thought, freedom of conscience and expression as well as freedom to embrace or reject any religion, then the kids are deprived of developing a full understanding of and the faculty to make rational use of their basic rights and liberties.

That is to say - parents may live out their religion together in front of their children, but the limits are the above. Also this means that parents may not enroll their children into institutions indoctrinating the children without their free and informed consent, which can only be given by responsible adults - so I think religion should be something for consenting adults, adopting it freely and informed - which also means I think comparative religious studies should be mandatory.

Any expression-of-a-world-view that serves to limit the child's development of the faculties to recognize and make full autonomous use of their basic liberties rights and freedoms is incompatible with the principle of justice.

Comprehensive doctrines that stress rationality, freedom of thought, liberty of conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom to embrace or reject any religion (which no religious indoctrination can teach, because it makes claims to having eternal, metaphysical truth), are unproblematic for the first principle of justice. Religion is not.

That's the gist of it - but for the details of this view and the details of the arguments, you would have to read my paper.

Other Comments by MPhil

226. Comment #179002 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 11:24 am

Today, when some believer tries to pass off substance dualism, they are stung by philosophical antibodies in a gang-up. I can't help but be pleased.

Quine I realise that substance dualism is out of favour with materialist philosophers, and, given the paradigm shift since Hume in particular, enjoys little credibilty in philosophy departments as a whole. But I think you will find that it will not go away so easily. There have been some robust defences of it recently. The problem with it is, of course, that it is incompatible with a materialistic conception of the human being, which is the real reason why most academics, committed a priori to naturalism as they are, will not even engage with it. CS Lewis mounted a stringent defence of it in the 40s, but it has gained in sophistication and in explanatory power since then.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

227. Comment #179003 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:26 am

There have been some robust defences of it recently.

No there haven't. The arguments for any materialist conception are still much stronger.

The general problems with substance dualism won't go away, and are more than conclusive.

And look what you're doing - you're pulling a Ben Stein... "BIG PHILOSOPHY" is terrorizing (expelling) poor dualism.

The arguments by Lewis (and their refinements) are all undermined by the detailed account of what I laid out here. There is no conception of substance dualism that is not vastly less rationally tenable than monism.

That's what's reflected in the percentage of expert academic philosophers of mind who accept substance dualism - not bias.

Other Comments by MPhil

228. Comment #179008 by Quine on May 12, 2008 at 11:35 am

So, Artful, did substance dualism exist back in the days of Homo erectus? If so, what matter, exactly, did the non-matter interact with? If not, when did the non-matter start interacting with the matter? Where was that first interaction and how was it chosen?

Other Comments by Quine

229. Comment #179009 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 11:36 am

MPhil, I reckoned that was what you were referring to. I would like to read your paper. I am a Christian parent, and know a lot of other Christian parents. Christian parents in my experience do not subject their kids to threats of eternal damnation unless they behave in a particular way. That indeed would be psychological abuse and manipulation. But do you really believe that parents who sincerely transmit their faith in God to their kids, striving to embody and exemplify God's love and goodness towards them and towards other people (friends, guests in their home etc.) are guilty of indoctrination and mental torture? Naturally we hope that our children will embrace our beliefs. But (in my experience) there is not and cannot be any kind of manipulation or emotional pressure. I'm not denying that it happens in some cases, but it contradicts the whole thrust of Scripture, which is respectful of the will of every human being to orient his or her life towards God or away from Him. When we choose the latter we are choosing our own destiny. God does not force a relationship with Him on anyone, either in this life or beyond.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

230. Comment #179014 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:53 am

Have you seen Jesus Camp and Baby Bible Bashers. That's what I was referring to. It mustn't be only mental torture, it can be the dogma that is indoctrinated without torture that restricts the rights of the child in the way outlined above, or it can be the means of indoctrination, not the dogma itself that is contradictory to the first principle of justice, or it can be both. All three are incompatible with the first principle of justice in the way outlined above. But mostly I think the dogma itself is the problem, since it is self-referring, exclusive and does deny itself deny the liberties, rights and freedoms. There is no liberty of conscience, no freedom of religion, because this one is right and all who think differently deserve the fate of hell, or to be killed or converted. This, taught to a child as unquestionable dogma negates the freedoms, rights and liberties mentioned above and is itself psychological coercion, ie deprivation of freedom.

Other Comments by MPhil

231. Comment #179016 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 11:55 am

The Child-labelling that Prof. Dawkins so rightly criticizes is another instance of religious/social practice that limits the freedom of the child - since it is told to be and considered as a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/...

Other Comments by MPhil

232. Comment #179017 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 11:56 am

Artful Dodger,
Would say then that the born again experiences of Jesus Camp are good or bad? Would you agree with the tactics of such evangelicals?

Other Comments by MaxD

233. Comment #179018 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 11:57 am

Damnit MPHil did beat me to it.

Other Comments by MaxD

234. Comment #179020 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Artful_Dodger

But do you really believe that parents who sincerely transmit their faith in God to their kids, striving to embody and exemplify God's love and goodness towards them and towards other people (friends, guests in their home etc.) are guilty of indoctrination and mental torture? Naturally we hope that our children will embrace our beliefs. But (in my experience) there is not and cannot be any kind of manipulation or emotional pressure. I'm not denying that it happens in some cases, but it contradicts the whole thrust of Scripture, which is respectful of the will of every human being to orient his or her life towards God or away from Him. When we choose the latter we are choosing our own destiny. God does not force a relationship with Him on anyone, either in this life or beyond.

I like your God he sounds nice. Can you just do one thing for me? Can you re-read the bible and try to say that again with a straight face.

Thanks

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

235. Comment #179024 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Mphil,
What I remember from Baby Bible Bashers wasn't the spiritual depth of the little preachers it was their child's desire to get approval from their parents and the way the parents almost don't even acknowledge their existence apart from the God context-or worse yet the money earning context.

Other Comments by MaxD

236. Comment #179026 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm

What I remember from Baby Bible Bashers is that kid in New York telling us that if you don't get saved, you will burn forever, and worms will eat your flesh. The child took all of this literal, and just wanted to save others from that horrible fate by converting them, and thereby(!) please his parents. The kid definitely suffered a severe mental trauma, I mean actually, literally believing what is parents told him: That everyone who isn't saved get burned and tortured forever - that is mental torture what was done to him. And the doctrine itself negates freedom and rationality.

Seeing that boy telling us about hell made me physically sick.

Other Comments by MPhil

237. Comment #179028 by MaxD on May 12, 2008 at 12:10 pm

It was disgusting, you say true, I say thank ye. To quote a favorite book of mine.

Other Comments by MaxD

238. Comment #179029 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Oh, I should also note - indoctrinating into a child the belief that homosexuals/homosexuality are/is sinful and evil is also incompatible with the demand of the first principle of justice that there is a duty to educate the children in a way so they can recognize the equal right of everyone else to all liberties and rights that are granted. This is negated by the religious claim that homosexuality is a sin and a social evil, and that heresy/(blasphemy) is also immoral, intolerable behaviour.

Other Comments by MPhil

239. Comment #179030 by Quine on May 12, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Christian parents in my experience do not subject their kids to threats of eternal damnation unless they behave in a particular way.

They often just let their clerics do it for them. I have a relative who is the father of a young boy. The dad (not a believer) got divorced and the mom remarried into a Christian family. The boy was then sent to religious indoctrination where he was given the explicit word that his unbelieving father was going to spend eternity in horrible agony burning in hell. This caused the boy, who loves his father, very substantial psychological suffering and other emotional development problems.

Artful, you just can't dodge the fact that this is happening to children around the world through the adherence to old myths and new age swindles. Go research the origins of your religious texts and traditions. Go look at how people can be swept up in the self propagation of cults. Just go look, and perhaps at some point, you will see.

Other Comments by Quine

240. Comment #179038 by Shaden on May 12, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Artful_Dodger,

I am a Christian parent, and know a lot of other Christian parents. Christian parents in my experience do not subject their kids to threats of eternal damnation unless they behave in a particular way.

I know a lot of Christian parents too, and every one of them would threaten their children with eternal damnation if they try to follow a different path. This leaves no room for children to find God on their own, it must be force feed by their parents, or else.

...indoctrination and mental torture

Absolutely.

Other Comments by Shaden

241. Comment #179043 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm

MPhil, I know nothing of the Jesus Camp. I have seen something of the Baby Bible Bashers, and what I have seen of it makes me cringe. But I don't know anything about how they came to be doing that. I don't know if they were manipulated and indoctrinated into doing it. I can't say whether any "child abuse" was involved.

Quine what do you mean "through adherence to old myths". If you are talking about belief in historic Christianity then any of the kind of stuff you are talking about is out of synch with how Jesus treated people. The cults and sects you mention, with people threatened and tortured to keep them in the cult, and to keep them in line, are deviations and distortions. Jim Jones, for example, in a documentary I saw, at one point threw the Bible down and said "you don't need this any more. I am the word of the prophet". It was not long after that that the tragic collective suicide ensued.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

242. Comment #179045 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Comment #179043 by Artful_Dodger

Jim Jones, for example, in a documentary I saw, at one point threw the Bible down and said "you don't need this any more. I am the word of the prophet"

So what did Jesus do that was different?

Other Comments by epeeist

243. Comment #179050 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 pm

By the way, Christian parents have the right to teach their kids that the institution of marriage is intended by God to be heterosexual. That will form part of what they pass on to their kids, tho it will not be the only part. Will parents also be getting into trouble for teaching their kids about the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of all human life from conception? It is ironic that many of the people who shout loudest about the supposed psychological torture of parents transmitting their Christian beliefs to their kids are quite prepared to accept with complete equanimity the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn children, even right up to birth, for no other reason than that the woman's right not to have the child outweighs the child's right to be born.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

244. Comment #179054 by SamKiddoGordon on May 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm

All this seeminly pointless debates leads me to wonder if "man" even has reason. Definately our own perspective would indicate that, but reason seems to beyond the ID crowd, so if they are human, are the rest of us reasonable? We are animals, so why do we think the rest of the animal kingdom cant reason? We make so many asumptions of intelligence, morals, reason, even life itself. Unless we question those "givens" how can we question where it comes from?

We are all in the Matrix dudes.

God is Fraud

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

245. Comment #179056 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 1:10 pm

the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn children, even right up to birth, for no other reason than that the woman's right not to have the child outweighs the child's right to be born.

One of the hardest moral decisions out there. However everyone agrees people should be allowed to scratch there nose, and that infanticide is wrong. We know the answer lies somewhere in between. The question is not answered by Christianity.

Lets look at the bible for the answer.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Oh shit!

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

246. Comment #179059 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Will parents also be getting into trouble for teaching their kids about the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of all human life from conception?

Can you please read your Bible. Are you even a Christian? I am starting to wonder.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

247. Comment #179063 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 1:17 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad, why is it such a hard decision? Why is it hard to decide to do the right thing? But yes, it is hard NOT to decide in favour of self-interest, especially when the surrounding culture is making yus believe that by so doing we are actually doing the right thing.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

248. Comment #179064 by Diacanu on May 12, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Oboy, a whole buffet of stunted narrowminded black & white crap to pick apart.
It all looks so tasty, where to start?

Artful_Dodger-

By the way, Christian parents have the right to teach their kids that the institution of marriage is intended by God to be heterosexual.

They have the right to teach about Santa and The Boogeyman too, so what?

That will form part of what they pass on to their kids, tho it will not be the only part. Will parents also be getting into trouble for teaching their kids about the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of all human life from conception?

Define "trouble"?

It is ironic that many of the people who shout loudest about the supposed psychological torture of parents transmitting their Christian beliefs to their kids are quite prepared to accept with complete equanimity the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn children, even right up to birth, for no other reason than that the woman's right not to have the child outweighs the child's right to be born.

1. A glob of cells isn't a human.
The only argument that says they are, is the case that an invisible spook enters the zygote.
Supply evidence of this invisible spook, and then you can have some authority on the subject.
Otherwise the notion is rightly dismissed.

And I'm no fan of late term abortions, but under some circumstances, even they can be necesary.

So please, do lose this cartoon charicature of hand-wringing, mustache twirling "baby slaughterers", it's tiresome, and cuts no dice here, and wins no one to your point of view.

2. Yes, women have the right to control their bodies. I know the bible says they're meant to cleave unto their husband, and essentially be chattle, but tough crap. We're out of the bronze age. What a bunch of ignorant goatherders had to say about gender equality doesn't cut it anymore.

3. Emotionalistic buzzwords like "wanton slaughter", aren't going to cut it, nor is superstitious nonsense. I'm sure they do with your christian buddies, but this ain't christian turf.
Construct a proper argument, or piss off.

Other Comments by Diacanu

249. Comment #179068 by Quine on May 12, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Artful, Jim Jones is a great example, what with parents forcing cyanide Kool-Aid down the throats of their own children. Why did these people do that? Why did they believe him?

In the middle ages the Church of Rome effectively threw down the Bible and declared that apostolic provenance trumped scripture. Later, Protestants would focus on this to (in name anyway) regain scripture. The joke on them is that back in the second century before the formal establishment of the NT, the pronouncements of someone who had gotten the word from a first century preacher were given standing.

The joke continues because neither you nor I nor anyone else knows "how Jesus treated people." We have no direct documentation. We have a collection of stories that reflect the writings of those second century people who had been given an oral recounting of things they had not themselves witnessed.

Look at the followers of Islam and Hinduism and the Sikhs and Mormons and JWs and Shinto and all the other religions on earth. They teach their children to believe things that cannot be substantiated by evidence. Part of that teaching is always, "we are good, and they are bad" and the bad get punished. You may fool yourself into thinking that your faith has made it to some kind of higher ground by leaving the punishment to the "next life" but the inherent fear of that is still punishment here and now.


Book recommendation: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Other Comments by Quine

250. Comment #179074 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Artful_Dodger

By the way, Christian parents have the right to teach their kids that the institution of marriage is intended by God to be heterosexual. That will form part of what they pass on to their kids, tho it will not be the only part. Will parents also be getting into trouble for teaching their kids about the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of all human life from conception? It is ironic that many of the people who shout loudest about the supposed psychological torture of parents transmitting their Christian beliefs to their kids are quite prepared to accept with complete equanimity the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn children, even right up to birth, for no other reason than that the woman's right not to have the child outweighs the child's right to be born.

You'll never have to experience the pain of childbirth resulting from being raped, so fuck off.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme