Philosophy Discussion Forums

Yes, Jj, I 'understand the difference" between myths people believe in and those that they don't. However, it doesn't bother me like it bothers some people who post here. I mean (since I studied anthropology) if you were an anthropologist and were studying in the wilds of New Guinea, would you be interested in whatever religion they practiced there, or would you feel called on to tell them, "It's all bogus! Your Gods don't exist! They were borrowed from other Polynesian cultures!" To some extent, it's a matter of respect. It's reasonable to disagree with others, but not to think them morons for disagreeing with you.

I can understand the perspective of Jj, by the way, who used to be a believer and still struggles with the disonance between his current and former world views. I'm pretty sure that all my grandparents were atheists, as well as my parents, so I'm more distanced from religion, and it doesn't seem threatening to me. Perhaps one must go through an anti-religion stage to reach the "post-religious" state.

Also, I disagree that "religion is based on mythology." One "school" of thought in the anthropology of religion is the so-called "Myth-ritual" school. It posits that ritual preceded myth, and that myths actually developed (in part) as explanations for rituals. This makes sense, since non-human animals practice a variety of rituals, but (lacking sophisticated language) do not tell myths. So the "dying and rising God" motif developed out of rituals designed to revive the fertility of the fields after the winter (acc. to this school of thought). The myths came later -- as stories that explained the rituals. So (again) the notion that "religion is based on mythology" is a very Christian and even Fundamentalist notion. Ritual may be more essential to the formation of religion. Nobody really knows.

Ecurb wrote:Yes, Jj, I 'understand the difference" between myths people believe in and those that they don't. However, it doesn't bother me like it bothers some people who post here. I mean (since I studied anthropology) if you were an anthropologist and were studying in the wilds of New Guinea, would you be interested in whatever religion they practiced there, or would you feel called on to tell them, "It's all bogus! Your Gods don't exist! They were borrowed from other Polynesian cultures!" To some extent, it's a matter of respect. It's reasonable to disagree with others, but not to think them morons for disagreeing with you.

I did not say anything about teaching these New Guinea natives that their religious practices are bogus. I talked about teaching our children that the religious practices that the people around you will try to teach you will be bogus. I did not say anything in this debate about tearing down anyone else's religion, in fact I argued pretty hard in the beginning of this topic against the premise that teaching your child your own religious beliefs is not abuse. (I believe personally that mankind will be better off without religion, but have not argued this position).

One of my counters to their argument was that their conclusion was based on the christian religion being untrue as being their foundation of of calling to abuse and therefore any thing a parent teaches a child that turns out fo be untrue could then rise to the level abuse, to which their counter was that they would not even teach children that atheism is true, but allow their child to choose on their own.

That is where I entered my counter to this in that we have a duty to prepare our children for life and issues that they may face in their adult life. One of those will definitely be religion. I beleive we must equip our children to help them make the critical choice in this matter instead of crossing our fingers and just hope the child gets it right when that day arrives with no preparation.

-- Updated July 17th, 2012, 5:36 pm to add the following --

Ecurb wrote:I can understand the perspective of Jj, by the way, who used to be a believer and still struggles with the disonance between his current and former world views. I'm pretty sure that all my grandparents were atheists, as well as my parents, so I'm more distanced from religion, and it doesn't seem threatening to me. Perhaps one must go through an anti-religion stage to reach the "post-religious" state.

From a psychological perspective, this may be what it appears, but I do not think it is. When a person first learns that their religion which they beleived and practiced their whole life is false, then they do actually experience grief. I went through all the classic stages of grief in the months following my revelation.

Coming out on the other side, my original view towards my past religion was one of high tolerance. In fact, I surmised at the time that some people were probably incapable of living life without religion. Some people were better people for the false religion in my mind.

However, after reading Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett, I became convinced of their thesis that religion is evil and it is hindering mankinds progress. Good people are good people with or without religion. Evil people are evil people with or without religion. However, religion is the only thing capable of making a good person perform evil acts.

-- Updated July 17th, 2012, 5:46 pm to add the following --

Ecurb wrote: Also, I disagree that "religion is based on mythology." One "school" of thought in the anthropology of religion is the so-called "Myth-ritual" school. It posits that ritual preceded myth, and that myths actually developed (in part) as explanations for rituals. This makes sense, since non-human animals practice a variety of rituals, but (lacking sophisticated language) do not tell myths. So the "dying and rising God" motif developed out of rituals designed to revive the fertility of the fields after the winter (acc. to this school of thought). The myths came later -- as stories that explained the rituals. So (again) the notion that "religion is based on mythology" is a very Christian and even Fundamentalist notion. Ritual may be more essential to the formation of religion. Nobody really knows.

Isn't that just splitting hairs with what I said? I failed to say it in the proper professional progression, but I basically have said that what we know as myth today was religion at some point history to some people. It may not be the whole of what their religion experience was, but the stories that we know as myth were the religious stories of the day.

Placing my argument more squarely in your professional terms, Christianity and the Hebrew Scriptures contained religious memes and common beliefs of the day in which they were developed. The story upon which the copy seemed to have transpired from have been at later dates been catalogued in our literature as mythology, therefore, it is reasonable to state that at some point, Christ, Moses, and Abraham should be catalogued as mythology instead of religion.

Jjpregler wrote: I did not say anything about teaching these New Guinea natives that their religious practices are bogus. I talked about teaching our children that the religious practices that the people around you will try to teach you will be bogus. I did not say anything in this debate about tearing down anyone else's religion, in fact I argued pretty hard in the beginning of this topic against the premise that teaching your child your own religious beliefs is not abuse. (I believe personally that mankind will be better off without religion, but have not argued this position). .

Let's see. You want to teach children that the religious practices of those around them are (what was the word?) "bogus", but you aren't saying anything "about tearing down anyonte else's religion."

Good people are good people with or without religion. Evil people are evil people with or without religion. However, religion is the only thing capable of making a good person perform evil acts.

I don’t buy it. I’ll grant that religion is a powerful force. However, what makes good people perform evil acts is idealism, and (although it can be religious) it often is not. Lenin, supporter of the people and admirer of the People’s State, committed evil acts for his ideals – and those ideals were not religious. Now Xris’s ideals lead him to think religious people who teach their children about religion are not only wrong, but are also child abusers. I assume he wants them stopped, or thrown into prison (isn’t it reasonable to imprison child abusers?). If he got his way, his ideals would lead him to perform evil acts. Obviously, basically good people don’t perform evil acts for no reason at all – they do it for a reason. That reason can be religious – but there are any number of other reasons that work just as well.

Jjpregler wrote: ...religion is the only thing capable of making a good person perform evil acts.

Do you actually believe this? How could religion be the only thing? People believe in other things just as strongly as religion & other things than religion are as important to people as religion.

Say someone kidnapped a good person's family, and required of them an evil act, or harm would come to their family... Unlikely example sure, but I'm sure I could think of more reasonable situations and ones that have probably happened often.

-- Updated July 17th, 2012, 6:21 pm to add the following --

Ecurb wrote:

Let's see. You want to teach children that the religious practices of those around them are (what was the word?) "bogus", but you aren't saying anything "about tearing down anyonte else's religion".

Are you implying there is a contradiction there? If so, I don't see it.

Ecurb wrote:

Let's see. You want to teach children that the religious practices of those around them are (what was the word?) "bogus", but you aren't saying anything "about tearing down anyonte else's religion."

So by telling my child that Pastor Bob and his religion is bat crap crazy in the privacy of my own house is offensive to Pastor Bob now? How will we ever acheive any change in any positive direction without the power to negate things that are wrong? Or is this another instance where we can call communism wrong, or call facism wrong, but religion gets a free pass from being negated?

In fact the quate I was responding to you directly stated about going to New Guinea and telling the natives they were bat crap crazy. I said that I said no such thing, which I didn't. But do you really believe that I should not be able to teach my son in my own home the evolution of religious ideas throughout history without offending anyone. Does that mean I have to teach him that atheism is just as probable as Zeus being the King of the Gods so I don't any ancient greeks that may stiull be around.

Nothing gets a pass imo.

But maybe we are arguing details/splitting hairs needlessly.


Do you agree it is ok to teach our children what we think is right, in private?

Do you agree it is not ok for tax funded schools to teach myth/fiction/plainly dubious facts as fact? (there is a god/there is not a god)

Do you agree it ok for private schools to teach myth/fiction/plainly dubious facts as fact?



Seems like if we answer these the same, we are mostly in agreement, no?

Maldon007 wrote:
Do you actually believe this? How could religion be the only thing? People believe in other things just as strongly as religion & other things than religion are as important to people as religion.

Say someone kidnapped a good person's family, and required of them an evil act, or harm would come to their family... Unlikely example sure, but I'm sure I could think of more reasonable situations and ones that have probably happened often.

I actually think that ecurb put a better wording on this by saying Idealism can cause good people to perform evil. Among which religion is one form of idealism that would cause persons to commit evils.

I think the type of situation you are attempting to formulate would be more of a grey area where it could even be argued that a person forced to commit an evil and not choosing to do so of his own volition did not commit evil. Then we could debate on and on about how much forcing is required to remove responsibility from the actor. This I think would just be a rare exception to the generalization of idealism being able to cause otherwise good people to commit evil acts. Since these are more of a voluntary act than someone forced to act to save their family.

But then again, what is the possible Ideal that the person has who is forcing the action has that may be creating the chain of evil.

-- Updated July 17th, 2012, 8:39 pm to add the following --

Maldon007 wrote:Nothing gets a pass imo.

But maybe we are arguing details/splitting hairs needlessly.


Do you agree it is ok to teach our children what we think is right, in private?

Do you agree it is not ok for tax funded schools to teach myth/fiction/plainly dubious facts as fact? (there is a god/there is not a god)

Do you agree it ok for private schools to teach myth/fiction/plainly dubious facts as fact?



Seems like if we answer these the same, we are mostly in agreement, no?

I don't think I said anything contrary to any of that in this thread. For the most part I agree with all of those statements.

Yeah, I agree, ecurb said it better... I didnt see his post till after I posted, or I would not have bothered.

Jjpregler wrote:
So by telling my child that Pastor Bob and his religion is bat crap crazy in the privacy of my own house is offensive to Pastor Bob now? How will we ever acheive any change in any positive direction without the power to negate things that are wrong? Or is this another instance where we can call communism wrong, or call facism wrong, but religion gets a free pass from being negated? .

Yes, Jj, calling religious people “bat crap crazy” is offensive. First of all, Pastor Bob is NOT “bat crap crazy” – and it’s ridiculous of you to assert that he is (assuming Pastor Bob is a normal, same, pastor). Teaching the truth is not dependent on insults and ad hominem arguments, especially when those arguments are illogical (as yours are). The notion that all religious people must be “bat crap crazy” (or they would agree with Jj) is ludicrous and egomaniacal. We all know that plenty of people who are far more intelligent than Jj and as sane as any of us are religious.

Teach your child what you want to teach him, Jj, but teaching him that religious people are crazy is clearly incorrect and bigoted.

How can teaching your own children that religion is flawed and fraudulent is some how wrong but teaching them religion from a dogmatic position is correct? At least we as atheist do not institute an education system that tries to indoctrinate other parents children. From my perspective any one who actively tries to pursued children there is a god are perpetuating a myth, needs confronting.

If your being a great parent, your children will be able to teach you something..If there is a God, he too would be a great listener...I guess.

Xris wrote:How can teaching your own children that religion is flawed and fraudulent is some how wrong but teaching them religion from a dogmatic position is correct? At least we as atheist do not institute an education system that tries to indoctrinate other parents children. From my perspective any one who actively tries to pursued children there is a god are perpetuating a myth, needs confronting.

You answer your own question, Xris. Teaching children that religion is flawed is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Teaching them that it is “fraudulent” is a calumny against your neighbors. Sincere, well-meaning religious believers may be incorrect, but they are neither “fraudulent” (as Xris suggests) nor “bat crap crazy” as (Jj suggests).

Ecurb wrote:
You answer your own question, Xris. Teaching children that religion is flawed is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Teaching them that it is “fraudulent” is a calumny against your neighbors. Sincere, well-meaning religious believers may be incorrect, but they are neither “fraudulent” (as Xris suggests) nor “bat crap crazy” as (Jj suggests).

Why is it wrong if that is what I believe? I am not instructing or imposing my beliefs on others children like the religious attempted to do with my children. I believe religion is fraudulent, so those who act to impose their beliefs are frauds. Frauds who have suffered the same consequences of dogmatic indoctrination, compelled to perpetuate the same fraud.

It is wrong because what you believe is incorrect, and you are bearing false witness against your neighbours. If you told you children that your neighbours were child molesters when they aren’t, that would be evil, too. You owe your neighbours due diligence before insulting them and accusing them. I don’t doubt that some religious people are frauds – but tarring all religious people with that same brush is just as bigoted as telling your children that all of their neighbours of African descent are thieves. “Fraud” is “wilful deceit or trickery”. No reasonable person can believe that every religious person is “wilfully deceiving” others when he or she tells them about religion. Religious people may be wrong, but they are not all “fraudulent”.

But a reasonable person may agree a good number of higher ups in religious institutions of specifically of certain institutions, are deceitful, greedy, frauds. No not all, but enough imo.

And save that, I can look directly at the beliefs themselves and judge them to be fraudulent, regardless of the honesty of the believer. I totally agree on taking the venom out of atheism, it is a GREAT idea... And I personally will not/do not tell my kids religion is fraudulent, but I supports others who do, as I support others who teach their kids god is real.

Point being, I support teaching your kids, period. Regardless of what is taught, I assume it will be superior to public education, on the whole.