Philosophy Discussion Forums

Is it the case that 'the wide range of bi-polars' is sorted by doctors so that one sort is clinically treatable, and the other sort is not bi-polar enough to need any treatment?

In a similar practical way, some forms of religious indoctrination by sub groups of society don't require any intervention because the religious indoctrination is not reckoned to do any harm? I suggest therefore that the observation of Christmas festivities cause no suffering and should be taught to children

Likewise the architecture of ancient churches does no harm and should be conserved. I am all in favour of church ceremonies such as christenings weddings and funerals for anybody who wants them. I would however that children be taught that there are choices for them so that for instance if the child is to be a homosexual adult he will be able to be as much married as any heterosexual person. It is disappointing of the RCC and the Church of Scotland to be so illiberal, vis a vis gay marriage in Scotland.Their insistence that the rules and regulations of their religious institutions are more important than human happiness should not be transmitted to innocent children. I am not going to apologise forn introducing the tangential matter of gay marriage because this dispute highlights the iniquity of religious indoctrination when some adult teaches some child that God's supposed word matters more than human beings and ordinary human kindness and reasonableness.

Marriage should be between consenting persons and not between say a woman and a dog, or a man and a car, or an adult and a child. Ability to consent is surely the criterion ,no?

Misty wrote:

Theistic thinking slows what down? How and in what way? What do you want to move faster, and for what?

-- Updated Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:06 am to add the following --

At the beach with my 5 yr old grandson, who became afraid of a thunder storm and cuddled up next to me, looking wide eyed at me said - Mamaw, God loves us so why is he trying to kill us? Out of the mouths of babies!

I have been trying to find a you tube video I saw where Neil deGrasse Tyson argues is.

Belinda I agree,the ceremony the church supplies can be very important. I just oppose the dogmatic education of young minds.

Xris,

Xris wrote: What evidence would you like. Statistics are never used to enlighten us simply to support an argument. 99% of criminals on death row in America claim to believe in god. Is that sufficient?

I think that if you're going to make huge statements, such as "religious indoctrination being a form of child abuse," then you need to support your opinion with some factual evidence. If your evidence is in statistical form, then by all means post the web address of where you got your evidence from. As such, where did you get the statistic from regarding the 99% of criminals on death row claiming to believe in God? And, what do you think the connection is between that statistic and indoctrination being a form of child abuse?

Xris wrote: Look at the figures, if a child is not introduced to religion till they reach age of reason the vast majority become atheists. So with that reason those who are introduced to religion early must be indoctrinated. Indoctrinating a young mind in my opinion is abuse. Catholics appear in catholic countries, Muslims appear in Islamic countries. Hindus appear in countries where Hinduism prevails. Catholics give birth to catholics, protestants give birth to protestants. The evidence is clear, those parents by the laws of averages have to indoctrinate their offspring. Do all those parents know the best for their kids or none of them? The adverse effects for many are as long as elephants nose, would you like to hear about them?

Look at what figures? You haven't presented any figures. Just your own opinion so far. Also, it stands to reason that if a child is not educated or let's say not indoctrinated about God or other gods, then they will have no knowledge or understanding of any gods and be an atheist. Just as a child who is not educated or indoctrinated about science or any other subject, would have no knowledge or understanding of science or any other subject not taught to them. And would thus be equivalent to an atheist (having no belief in science for example). I think that it is normal for parents to pass on what they have learned and what they believe to their children. I would very much like to know what the adverse effects of teaching / indoctrinating a child about God and religion are, but if it is just more of your own opinion, please support what you're saying with some evidence.

Bermudj wrote: I have been trying to find a you tube video I saw where Neil deGrasse Tyson argues is.

Hi Bermudj,

Neil Degrasse Tyson is an agnostic and the argument is that there are many ways the universe wants to kill us, not God. I found this on wiki - then to read more click 'intelligent design'. As a believer in creator God it is logical to me that the universe is a place of birth and death. Death being the end of living in a world of good and evil. God-kind, and the God of our universe do not want mankind to dwell in good and evil but in pure love. Death destroys good and evil and God destroys death, as symbolized by Jesus, to usher mankind into pure love. As for my grandson, I told him God is not trying to kill us but that all die at some point, and the storm was to give us water or else all life would dry up, and in that sense God loves us and has made the universe to sustain the life and death cycle.

Misty wrote:...Death destroys good and evil and God destroys death, as symbolized by Jesus, to usher mankind into pure love. ...

Could you elaborate on this a bit more? As it stands I really cannot understand it. Thanks.

Intelligent design is saying that our form of body was planned to be here, I don't believe that because we could of had 4 fingers instead of five and that wouldn't have made much different. Also this grandson, would be in a theistic perspective because he has not require enough knowledge and wisdom to understand reality. What he said about the lightning is a common description of characteristics of the physical world. It doesn't mean he will always be theistic, its just right now his level is theistic. We all start off theistic, then to atheistic then to deistic perspective of reality.

Agnostic Atheist is the same as saying deistic, look up Deism for the definition

Bermudj wrote: Could you elaborate on this a bit more? As it stands I really cannot understand it. Thanks.

Yes. Let me start by saying I believe the universe (heavens and earth) is the creation of creator God. I believe God lives with God kind but our universe was created by God and the Word. (Jesus or Son). I think since the universe was created by God, ALL is inspired by Him. (him being a term humans can relate to) I think some knowledge of God is innate to human beings, therefore, all the stories and wonders, some truth and some mankind's imaginations. I think knowledge, curiosities, discoveries, logic and all other things to learn and or contemplate is also innate to human brains. Like a story, it unfolds over time. Over time writings became the way mankind remembered things he thinks about and has learned and unlearned. The bible and all books and writings have the same inspiration which is from God, therefore all writings will have truths and the imagination of man mixed together. (imaginations of man being good and evil) The universe and it's hosts have unlimited diversity. Mankind can see that just by observing the human mind. I do not think billions of people are supposed to come to the same conclusions, as all have different backgrounds, experiences, some have no experience because death comes early in life, age, and the worlds technology, weather etc. keeps changing. The purpose of the universe is to experience good and evil. It is hard to contemplate but God is pure love. Pure love does not live in a world of good and evil. Pure love is neither good nor evil. Mankind dies so he will not always dwell in a world of good and evil. The Word came to earth as Jesus to show mankind he overcame death for ALL. Mankind dies to this earth but the life given goes back to it's maker. I believe each human, given time on earth will contemplate God and the things of this universe. Each has a different way of looking at life and all it entails. I cannot say what someone else should or should not believe. It is up to mankind to try and get along, to live and let live, to figure out how to survive together while on the earth. Your birth into this world gives you a place here and working with what intelligence your particular brain holds and interaction with others will determine your experiences of good and evil.

Teacher4U wrote:.. We all start off theistic, ...

I do not remember at the age of 2 months being theistic

-- Updated July 27th, 2012, 9:32 am to add the following --

Belinda wrote:Is it the case that 'the wide range of bi-polars' is sorted by doctors so that one sort is clinically treatable, and the other sort is not bi-polar enough to need any treatment?

And what about the range of bi-polar which cannot be clinically treated?

As an anecdote the first psychiatrist I went to see here in the UK wrote in his report, and I quote

In my opinion it is not helpful to attempt to treat a chronic condition which generally can only be ameliorated in the private sector...

I still have the report, actually this psychiatrist never imagined I would see such report.

-- Updated July 27th, 2012, 9:46 am to add the following --

Misty wrote:..The purpose of the universe is to experience good and evil. ....

Is the

universe

in this instance an alternative word for God, or the place created by God?

[quote="Bermudj,

-- Updated July 27th, 2012, 9:46 am to add the following --

Misty wrote:..The purpose of the universe is to experience good and evil. ....

Is the

universe

in this instance an alternative word for God, or the place created by God?[/quote]

Universe in this instance would be creation of God, in my opinion.

Xris wrote:Belinda I agree,the ceremony the church supplies can be very important. I just oppose the dogmatic education of young minds.

Same here, Xris. Church rituals are usually, as far as I know, given specific meanings by religionists. This is a problem because this is when the innocent public bonding rituals overflow into dogma. And this should not be allowed to happen to innocent children.

Public crematoria are interesting in respect of rituals without dogmas, and I guess that the following ruling applies all over the UK: the cross which customarily hangs on the wall has to be removed on request or is hung there only as requested by the relatives. Many prefer a different symbol or no symbol at all.Additionally it is quite common knowledge especially among professional undertakers that non -religious funerals can be conducted by trained Humanists and Unitarian ministers.I mention these details only to show that customarily religious places and rituals , even including churches, can effect consolation and bonding with no dogma whatsoever.

Same here, Xris. Church rituals are usually, as far as I know, given specific meanings by religionists. This is a problem because this is when the innocent public bonding rituals overflow into dogma. And this should not be allowed to happen to innocent children.

Most religious buildings, rituals, dogma & clothes are designed to impress people & introduce mystery. Pointy hats, golden cloaks, smoking things to swing about & shepherds crooks, to me smack of a severe case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'.

Religious rituals, clothing and songs are all man made. Jesus taught what comes from ones heart is what is important and not what one wears or the observances one keeps. While there is nothing wrong with a song or certain dress, that is not what one should seek to be honored by other people, as it will not make one kind but it is the heart where true honor comes. By honor I mean respect.

I must admit to singing a few hymns at funerals. We all need a certain ceremony to say goodbye to an old friend. I have no problem with churches they are part of all our histories, its this damned dogmatic attention that I can not stand.

Dogma: set of firmly held religious, political, or philosophical beliefs.

Dogmatic: expressing or adhering to strong beliefs.

Most people hold strong beliefs about something. Religious dogma, political, philosophical, or otherwise is sure to irritate other people sometimes. That does not mean religious beliefs (which seem to be the one most talked about for destruction) need to be destroyed. All things can be used for good or evil intentions. It is easy to remove oneself from the beliefs of others as adults. Children will suffer all kinds of belief systems while growing into adulthood be it religious- non religious, good-bad manners, proper schooling- improper or no schooling, influences of alcohol, drugs, illnesses, deaths, good-bad touch or rape, and other experiences. While it would be very nice to have perfect parents and societies where all children could grow up unafraid and unhurt, it will not happen in this world of good and evil. So for any group or belief system to blame all problems on religion is a lie. Religion per se should not be considered child abuse but it like all other organizations, teachings/teachers, other people in general, it can be a source of abuse.