60 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

The difference between Brainwashing and Preaching? Where does one end and the other begin?

This is really my only problem with preachers and tbh religion in general. People are indoctrinated when young and impressionable, they should be given a choice when they are older and wiser.

The example is a number of people i've met who were taken to church while young but have become adults and drifted away from it. Now they don't pray, they don't donate to church, they don't even go to church, but if you ask them they will claim to be Christian. Somewhere beyond all their adult learnings, some memory from when they are young says 'I should be Christian' . Because they were dragged to church while young they no-longer can say they don't believe. While all the evidence sits there for anyone to see, and it's rife in the UK, Church attendance is at 16% while on a census in 2001 about 70% claimed to be Christian.

In a time of enlightened discussion and freedom, in a land where we fought two massive wars and numerous small wars in the last 100 years. You still have control of thier minds, this is my problem, and it sickens me to my core.

[Whitey]

Funny, because while I am required to attend school, in which they teach everything the "scientific" way, I am not required to attend church or listen to preachers. If I don't attend church, I am not marked truent and given a detention.

If anything, I'd say I'm being brainwashed into atheism, not religion.

[CodeCat]

Who says schools preach atheism?

[Whitey]

US law.

[Golan]

Do they teach you that there is no god?

[Whitey]

Essentially.

[CodeCat]

Do they really?

[Whitey]

Well unless you are one of the few that decides to twist evolution and the big bang into the idea of God, then yes.

[CodeCat]

I still don't understand. How do they teach atheism?

[Zancloufer]

That might be a problem in the US. In Canada they haven't taught evolution, and my Science teachers are not atheist =o

[Whitey]

In the US, they teach Atheism and the Big Bang, despite how unproven the theories are. We learn them as fact. As such facts may contradict with religious beliefs, in calling them facts is the same as calling religion fiction, thereby teaching atheism, or the lack of a god.

So maybe it is just in the US, but it is certainly present in my life far more than theism is.

So my question is: Why are the impressionable minds of the youth being taught unproven information? Shouldn't they make the decision by their own reasoning? And thus why I have no issue with preachers.

Edited by Boidy, 31 October 2007 - 02:57.

[Crush3r]

For one thing, they should tell you that by being a theory, it is not 100% proven, but the ones in wide circulation, evolution and what is known about the Big Bang are backed up by a lot of evidence and present the only logical option (at the moment). For example evolution and genetic mutation has proofs in anthropology, paleontology, genetic research (mixing breeds/species), lab testing of microscopical life forms, evolution of viruses, and mathematical models for evolution, which are being developed to simulate on computers. Also knowing that the Universe is expanding at a certain rate, it must have had a very compact state from which it started. Many things are presented „as fact” because there is no logical alternative known. Still, by promoting what is known scientifically, atheism is not thought, because there are many more religions/philosophical religions besides Christianity, which opposes scientific facts/high probability theories. Also science does not claim to be the truth, but it claims to be in search of the truth. I know that this whole „we don't know for certain, so that's why you have to keep searching” thing is supposed to be said at least once during the formation years.

[Dauth]

Atheism is not science, it's just that a lot of atheists use science as their reason for disbelieving.

I think children should be taught to have reasoned choices, and I don't mind religion being discussed in Religious Education classes and I think science firmly belongs in Science labs, but religion does not belong in a science lab.

Science is the search for truth, if you give a group of scientists evidence contradicting their theory, they won't decry you as evil, they will test your evidence and if it survives testing it will become the basis of a new theory. Every day people try to break current theories, in my labs at uni I trying to contribute to breaking current theories.

We call our theroies of existence theories, you call your Religion you deliver them as facts, quite often people kill and die for these theories, thus my problem with preachers. Fred Hoyle never asked someone to blow up a telescope because his steady state theory of the universe was proved incorrect, he accepted it and retired.

[Whitey]

So we should automatically make all students believe that God is impossible because we might have evolved?

[Crush3r]

We almost certainly evolved. And that doesn't rule out the possibility of God's existence (see post #88 and others in God topic), but it (and the concept of determinism) sure make it less likely. Still it is up to the guy receiving the information to make up his mind.

[Whitey]

"We almost certainly evolved. "
No. We certainly have evidence that suggests we evolved. We also had evidence (headaches) that evil spirits dwelled within us. That one was scientifically proven false, the former, however, has yet to see the light. Thus we almost certainly did nothing. We might have evolved. We might have been created intelligently.

"Still it is up to the guy receiving the information to make up his mind."
Then you have no problem with preachers?

[Golan]

A theory does always include the possibility of being wrong, and every person "believing" in those will accept this. Preachings never include the possibility of being wrong, and every person "believing" in those will teach them as the truth. So if you want to blame teachers for teaching scientific theories as right, all you do is blaming them for not being what you´d call an atheist.

Edited by Golan, 01 November 2007 - 22:28.

[Whitey]

No. My issue is that I can't see why somebody shouldh ave a problem with a preacher calling their religion "fact", but have no issue with a teacher teaching things that contradict said religion as "fact".

[Pandut]

I like preachers!
But prechers who talk like this ''God shall damn thee soul into the fiery pits of hell!'' or ''Repent and thou lord shell have mercy on thee soul!'' That really annoys me....

[Whitey]

But "You all came from apes" and "You are all just dust in the wind" doesn't?

[CoLT]

The way I see it, preaching to the young and impressionable children may seem like it is removing their choice of religion but it does give them an idea of morality that they can later base their ideals, attitudes and values on.

Therefore, they are allowed to have a choice in their beliefs later on, but at a young age they are at least given a clue about right and wrong.

[Dauth]

If people want choice you need dispassionate information about both theories. There are facts about lots of theories.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, Book of Genesis, (whatever you want to call it)
1) An infintely powerful being that can only be detected on a subjective level created everyone, of order 10,000 years ago
2) If you believe this you go to heaven
3) if you don't you go to hell with all the atheists and people of the wrong religion
4) The main supporting evidence for this theory is a book written 4000 years ago, and then updated around 1900 years ago, it has been translated between numerous languages throughtout the ages, and with every translation information can be altered so we cannot be certain of the veracity of certain words, but the message should be the same
5) People have believed this theory for millennia, while in its youth it was firmly accepted, now a great deal of academics dispute it, pointing to contradictory evidence

Darwinism, evolution, EVIL, (whatever you want to call it)
1) Based on the results of observations of different creatures across the globe
2) Use evidence from deep underground, where it is unlikely to be tampered with by humans
3) All evidence can be re-analysed by anyone
4) The main evidence has been collected across the world and is based on the development of a theory original publicised in the late 1800's
5) Is constantly open to being updated

Now, I am bias so I would like the input into these facts from someone of the opposite point of view, until we come to an agreement.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

Fuck yhea. I like Being an Ape. As far as history goes APes have been more civilized then Preachers.

[Whitey]

Erm... no Dauth, you took a stereotypical Catholicism belief and analyzed it. Religion can be any number of things so you can't possibly cover it all.

Edited by Boidy, 04 November 2007 - 04:38.

[Staff Srg. Max Fightmaster]

Sir Isaac Newton was very religious. He believed that science and religion should coexist. I myself believe in evolution but I don't like organized religion. I also think evolution should be taught in school. Many people dislike math and believe they don't need it in life, but scientific studies show that math does indeed come in handy. This is the same with evolution; many people disbelieve it, but based on the science we have its the most probable theory. This is what science really is; a search for the truth. Ancient people put together tons of far fetched stories to explain why the sun sets, why plants die in the winter and what the stars were. Maybe the same is true with religion; a temporary explanation for things we don't understand. Hell, maybe some day they will find a more probable explanation for life than evolution and the big bang, but until then I'll go on accepting the most plausible explanation. Besides I find some things in the bible down right offensive (*cough*original sin).

By the way, I don't like preachers; they really annoy me for whatever reason.