[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]
Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.
It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]
That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.
[/quote]
Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.
For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.
I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]
But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]
I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]
Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]
… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.
Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]
Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]
No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.
As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]
Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.
You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.
It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned.
