You would think parents are more than suitable for teaching their own children such lessons
That's not always the case.
Most of the time (that I've seen) Parents that are suitable to do that are ones that go to church, or went to church as a child. Just saying. I'm not saying this to enforce religion upon anybody. But that it helps mold them into a better person.
All that has to be done is objective evidence be provided and the theists will have pretty much defeated atheism. Of course at the same time they defeat faith.
Wouldn't that be a success on the theists part? Because by "defeating faith" they'd be proving the truth of God, in which case faith is no longer required.
But then, if the existence of God were to be proven, wouldn't that destroy the purpose of religion, because then God would be more of a dictator than an idol.
technically there was no before as this is a measurement of time and since time and space are essentially one, no universe = no space = no time = no before.
What doesn't make sense to me is if there was no space or time, what caused the Big Bang, because how would it be possible for any kind of matter or reaction to exist outside of space and time?
Should we also let those beliefs influence laws that the rest of us have to live by? Or try and shoehorn them into public schools? Should we let them try and suppress the advancement of science and medicine because of and in favor of those beliefs? If it was just people believing and keeping those beliefs to themselves there wouldn't such an issue with it.
Now we're getting into strangely abortion-esque territory. Who has the right to determine what someone else has to live by? This includes both atheists and theists. It's wrong for laws to be influenced by theist beliefs that force those who don't believe to live by their belief, but is it not also wrong for atheists to force theists to accept as truth what is contrary to theist beliefs?
I do think going to church should be an integral part of growing up, atleast through elementary school.
As long as you remove all subjective viewpoints relating to God and/or Christianity from the teachings of the church then I'm fine with children going to church being 'integral' to a childhood - it's not really necessary though, I mean, I've never been in a church in my life and I've derived for myself what I'd consider a solid and well thought out moral code/standard.
Not because I want to enforce God upon anybody, but because what they teach in church (at least the one I went to) are good life lessons.
You don't really need to go to a church to learn life lessons though, do you? I mean, get guest speakers into the school to talk about various subjects or come up with a list of books that the children should have to read while in school and one can learn a lot of life lessons through that.
Any further life lessons and moral beliefs can be garnered by the child from their parents, from other books, from films, from learning about the cultures of other people in an educational and (mostly objective) viewpoint and from letting the children make their own decisions.
Most of the time (that I've seen) Parents that are suitable to do that are ones that go to church, or went to church as a child. Just saying.
Maybe where you live - where I live, however, hardly anyone I know (in my own age group or much older) has ever been to church in their life and even fewer of them are religious. I'd say that many of the parents I know set out good and suitable morals for their children.
Maybe where you live - where I live, however, hardly anyone I know (in my own age group or much older) has ever been to church in their life and even fewer of them are religious. I'd say that many of the parents I know set out good and suitable morals for their children.
Well if that's true then I see no point in debating about it. It helps people. People don't need it.
Religion, and especially the presentation of it to children in any manner other that objectively, is often far more of a hindrance than it is a help. It damages and dampens a persons ability to think logically and eases them into a false sense of security which they then become willing to discard things like fact, evidence and reason in order to protect. it's much better to let children make their own decisions about these sorts of things and find better sources from which to help shape their morality.
Religion, and especially the presentation of it to children in any manner other that objectively, is often far more of a hindrance than it is a help.
The churches and other Religous places where you live must suck.
It damages and dampens a persons ability to think logically and eases them into a false sense of security which they then become willing to discard things like fact, evidence and reason in order to protect.
When did Religion dampen peoples ability to think logically? It hasn't mine. Now, I will agree there are some people that are literally crazy when it comes to religion. But that doesn't happen often. Also how does religion make people fall into such a sense of false security that they discard things like Fact, evidence and reason?
The churches and other Religous places where you live must suck.
I wouldn't say that they were any worse than those throughout the rest of England - people just aren't as fanatical about religion here and certainly the younger generation seems to view religion as a whole with a sense of disapproval and disdain.
Also how does religion make people fall into such a sense of false security that they discard things like Fact, evidence and reason?
Many religious people still don't accept the Theory of Evolution - even with all the proof and evidence we have of it. People can become so caught up in religion and so strong in their conviction that their beliefs are correct that they see any facts or evidence that might be contrary to their beliefs as being inherently wrong or blasphemous - thus ignoring the potential challenges to their faith in order to preserve the full set of religious ideals that they hold.
Many religious people still don't accept the Theory of Evolution
I'm not one of them. Although, I do not believe that everything comes from a "common ancestor" but that things can evovle over time.
Although they have the right not to accept it. It is just that, a theory.
People can become so caught up in religion and so strong in their conviction that their beliefs are correct that they see any facts or evidence that might be contrary to their beliefs as being inherently wrong or blasphemous - thus ignoring the potential challenges to their faith in order to preserve the full set of religious ideals that they hold.
I guess that's true.
But exposing people to the beliefs of Christians shouldn't be outlawed. It should more widespread. As should exposing people to the beliefs of other religions.
It's wrong for laws to be influenced by theist beliefs that force those who don't believe to live by their belief, but is it not also wrong for atheists to force theists to accept as truth what is contrary to theist beliefs?
The only thing I want them to accept is reality. I wouldn't say that's a bad thing considering what the alternative has lead to.
Let's say someone was delusional and thought they could fly, getting that person to accept the reality they couldn't would to their benefit. Some religious beliefs can and have lead to similar detrimental results, not just to the individual but to others as well.
But exposing people to the beliefs of Christians shouldn't be outlawed. It should more widespread. As should exposing people to the beliefs of other religions.
No it shouldn't. Though shouldn't that be left entirely up to the individual and not indoctrinated into them piratically at birth and pushed and many other ways?
People say that evolution is just a theory but isn't gravitation also just a theory?
Actually both evolution and gravity are also facts as well as theories. But more simply put yes it is. "It's just a theory" simply shows ignorance of what a scientific theory is.
The only thing I want them to accept is reality. I wouldn't say that's a bad thing considering what the alternative has lead to.
First off, I don't think you can categorize any religion as a purely detrimental ideology. True, bad things have been done in the name of religion, but you can't completely disregard the good that has been done. And yet arguing over whether religion has helped or harmed us more is just as pointless as arguing over the existence of God.
Let's say someone was delusional and thought they could fly, getting that person to accept the reality they couldn't would to their benefit. Some religious beliefs can and have lead to similar detrimental results, not just to the individual but to others as well.
And yet one could say that by forcing religion on others, religious zealots are 'saving' them, and the whole. What I don't see is how forcing or not forcing someone to be educated about creation theories contrary to their belief harms them or others around them
no one knows becasue no one knows whether he exists or not some believe in the vig bang some bleieve god vreated the earth but there are things that defy that god does actualy exist like the fact that there is proof that life may have been created by tiny molecules which evolved after millions of years and created us but incredibly slowly but there is not much proof (although there is some) to say that this theory is correct, so it all depends on what you believe you can have your own theories and beliefs. so the answer i have to your question is no one knows sceintists are getting close but we wont know for years.
