Thread for TAE #747

A place for discussion and feedback regarding the Non-Prophets podcast and/or the Atheist Experience TV show.

Thread for TAE #747

Postby Lausten » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:18 pm

The thread has not opened on the FTB, so I'll start this here. There was a caller advocating for legislating away religion. I agree with Matt's points about why that is bad, but at around the 28 min mark he said something about how some people who traumatically lose their religion are left without the tools to develop a secular world view that benefits them. Unfortunately, this was not the brunt of the conversation and it moved in a weird direction about "vaccinating against religion".

Maybe they could do one of the intros on the topic of tools for developing a world view, sometime.

Interestingly, the last caller was saying that we should "use religion" as a way to convert fundamentalist, i.e. convert them to some more moderate version. Matt was completely against that. I also agree. I tried to work that one out and can explain in detail why it can't work.

Figuring out where we should stand, between these two, legislating religion away or using it as a moderator, seems like an interesting conversation.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Postby Apate » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:35 am

Matt was exactly right , moderating religion is exactly what the New Testament is and we can see how ugly that is . When you moderate anything you end up with deciders and followers , religion only became a threat in modern America when everybody became born again instead of a bunch of different sects who hated each other and kept a balance to religion .

Just as atheists stand against religion , we need evangelicals standing against Catholics , etc. etc .
Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth .
Apate
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:23 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Lausten » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:01 am

Yeah, I agree with that more or less. I was more interested in the "tools to develop a secular world view".
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Postby Apate » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:52 am

I agree with needing tools to develop a secular view but only 1 is needed and it is called freedom , the hairs stand up on the back of my neck whenever I hear a so called atheist who claims reason as its weapon and wants to somehow legislate away religion .

Freedom of choice should be applied to all facets of life including religion .
Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth .
Apate
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:23 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby DjVortex » Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:01 am

Legislating away religion goes against the most basic principles of human rights and freedom of speech/thought (as well as the freedom of people to peacefully assemble to do whatever they want).

However, a more problematic issue is protection of children. Children ought to be protected not only from physical harm, but also from mental harm as well.

The fact is, at least 90% (and probably more) of believers in any religion are so because they have been indoctrinated into it their whole lives, from well before they could think rationally and make informed decisions on what's true and what might not be, based on all possible data and evidence. It is also a very well known fact of psychology that once a person becomes convinced of something, eg. through indoctrination, it's extremely hard for them to start questioning it and thinking about it critically. That's why all religions try to get them as young as possible. No religion (I know of) teaches that "you should wait for your children to become adults before you teach them the religion", but the exact opposite.

To what extent can we limit what parents can teach their children, even if it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the teaching is indoctrination at an age when the child cannot make informed decisions on their own? The current answer is "we can't", but should that be such a self-evident fact of life?
DjVortex
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Postby Apate » Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:30 am

I will use a quote from Chris Hedges to answer your post ...

“The greatest danger that besets us does not come from believers or atheists; it comes from those who, under the guise of religion, science or reason, imagine that we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species.â€
Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth .
Apate
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:23 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Lausten » Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:04 pm

Good point Apate.

I thought Beth and Matt oversimplified the right of parents to teach their children anything. There are legal limits on that. Teaching them medicine is evil for instance has limits, at some point parents are required to take their kids in for medical treatment.

I saw an 8 year old smoking a cigarette with his parents one time, I guess that's legal, but I'm not sure what the limit is on alcohol. As for indoctrination, there must be some precedent for teaching violent behavior. The question then is, where is the line? If "God kills fags" and you teach kids they are the arm of god, is the parent responsible when they kid beats up a homosexual?

Obviously they are responsible for the kid until age 18, but would that be considered an unsafe environment? I'm talking about some extreme cases here, but I guess that's the problem. What counts as extreme?
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota


Return to Non-Prophets / Atheist Experience Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron