1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hey Guest, is it this your first time on the forums?

    Visit the Beginner's Box

    Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.

    Dismiss Notice

Galen's Soul (SYTO's thread [Fine, "Philosophy Thread"])

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Sytoplasma, Nov 5, 2014.

Mods: BlueLuigi
  1. Fernegulus

    Fernegulus Bison Rider

    Messages:
    400
    Oh, scientology of course is an even more ill concept. Now that it does seem logical to me that everything can be explained with enough data, a fast enough computer and a good physicist.

    The thing is, scientology is, again, very emotionless. It's not very human. Don't expect more from me now, I'm sick and tired.
     
  2. SAcptm

    SAcptm Haxor Staff Alumni

    Messages:
    134
    I actually just wanted to make my joke about tom cruise being a bad actor so sorry
     
    FuzzyBlueBaron and Dargona1018 like this.
  3. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,275
    Yes, im not defending scientology im just saying some religions abuse its followers like Catholicism that controlled king's by threatening to excommunicate them and their country which is basically "Do as I say or go to hell" or when Catholic priests accepted bribes to get rid of sins for the wealthy which is kinda like scientology's pay to learn system anyway I stand by what I said most religious parents teach their kids at a young age that god's word is right ect before they can make up their own mind about it. Also I don't see how religion leads to success if it doesn't exist(atheist perspective please don't attack this part <3 )
     
  4. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    You're using present tense, but you're talking about historical events that a) are looked on with disapproval today, and (more importantly) b) were always out of line with the core tenets of the Christian faith--even at the time that shit was happening. Just because you have examples of people of belief-system X (or, at least, claiming to be of belief-system X) doingitwrong.jpg doesn't mean you've got an actual example of that faith.

    What you've actually got is non-example of that faith--a demonstration that tells you a lot about the moral character of the individuals, and almost nothing about the faith they claim to follow.
    Right. Because young kids are rational beings capable of reasoning their way through a complex field of questioning that most adults find (at the very least) moderately tricky. Riiiiiight....... :rollseyes:

    To be fair, you probably haven't studied developmental psych, so it's unfair of me to assume we're working from the same page here. Let me give you a quick run down on the ages that children start to actually develop the skills they'd need to "make up their own mind":
    • Children begin (note: that's begin, as in, "only just start to") to develop concrete rationalism (i.e. the ability to develop logical thought about an object, if able to manipulate said object) at around ~7 years of age and continue to significantly improve their ability in this field until around ~11 years of age.
    • Children begin (again, note: that's begin) to develop abstract rationalism (i.e. the presence an object is not necessary for logical thought re: said object to take place) at around ~12 years of age and continue to significantly improve their ability in this field until around ~16 years of age.
    The theory I'm drawing on to make these generalisations was developed by Jean Piaget which, as an early contribution to developmental psych has accrued quite some criticism over the years; however, irrespective of particular issues with Piaget and his theories, there's a general consensus among modern-day developmental psychologists that those ages (7-11 and 12-16) are okay as a broad rule of thumb. Ofc, factors like individual intelligence, social and cultural climate, and explicit instruction methods can all impact upon those age ranges, but the fact remains: young kids simply don't posses the logical and analytical abilities necessary to "make up their own mind".

    Ofc, as kids develop better and better thinking skills with age, parents should engage and encourage their children to begin to assess the things they're told (from both parents and outsiders) for themselves; but saying "they can make up their own mind about it" is ignoring the simple, unavoidable, incontrovertible fact that young kids are actually pretty dumb, and hence aren't actually in a position to make informed decisions about stuff like "what major lens am I going to view the world through for possibly the rest of my life?". :huh?:
    Ignoring the part where you assume as part of your argument that the thing you're arguing against is phoney by default (srsly, that's not good form, dude), and accepting for the sake of argument the premise that: "all religions that pertain to the presence of a God [so most religions, barring ones like atheism, animalism, and some of the brands of humanism] are barking up the wrong tree bc there is no God"...

    Basically, it all comes down to whether the principles and doctrines of the religion are sufficiently in line with how the world actually works that someone following those principles and doctrines could "succeed" (a very contentious term in itself) at life. So if a religion teaches that: lying, cheating, stealing, murder, rape, and talking in theatres, etc., are all "bad" things to do, then, it's probably fair to say that instructing a child in that religion (and hence, in those ideas) will probably set them up for some measure of "success" in life. :potato:
     
  5. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,275
    You can teach children morals without religion(which I have nothing against and I have not called "phoney")and I didnt mean(and I don't believe I said)that children should make up their own minds about religion early I just said parents shouldn't "shove" one onto them at a young age(like I believe many do)
    anyway I didnt mean(nor do I think I said) that religion was bad I just personally don't want or need it myself. Also I was using past examples because im sticking to my main statement that most parents affect their children's future religion at a young and giving past examples of how other forms of faith have done what scientology is doing now(and what they've done from the start)
     
  6. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    Sigh.

    Just deleted a massive rant bc, well, reasons.

    //EDIT: came back and removed more. Not because I don't think it was accurate, but because I don't think me flipping my biscuit is a good example of what we want in this thread.

    Atheistic, humanistic, agnostic. These all answer "the God question"; they all suggest processes you should go through when determining how to live; they all (when you get down to it) maintain that their particular way of doing things is the 'right/good/sensible/whatever' way to do things.

    How is that, in any way, different from theistic religions?

    It's not.

    All parents affect their children's future religion at a young age because all parents are affiliated, one way or another, to a "religion".

    So please stop the stereotypes and diatribe about the superfluousness of religion in moral education. Stop rubbishing people (who genuinely want the best for their kids, who (for shame!) just happen to believe differently than you re: how the world works, and who're literally doing what every parent worth their salt does!) by comparing them to Scientology, one of the worst cults to have gained a foothold since that of Moloch. Pause for a infinitesimal moment and consider how, with some more careful wording, you could avoid people misunderstanding you and getting hurt and/or (as in my case) ragey. :huh?:

    Peace.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
  7. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,275
    Well im sorry I upset you with what I said(im not trolling you.......)and I admit my first post was just rude. that said you cannot accuse me of trying to annoy you in anyway when you're the one speaking down to me the entire time. I'm not trying to say parents are terrible people because they want their children to believe what they believe im just saying I think it is wrong they impart their religious views on them at a young age because that affects them growing up(I don't think there is any denying that)anyway like I said before I have nothing against religion and im honestly glad to stop this argument about religion (ill go back to spaming the rest of the forum :D )
     
  8. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    Fwiw, I edited my post to remove a lot of the rage. Apologies for that.
    ::(:

    How I feel when people tell me I'm talking down to them:

    I genuinely rarely feel ill-will towards people like that; it's just that I grew up reading a lot of older books and so my mode of speech keeps having a more archaic tone leak into it. #itsnotmyfault :QQ:
    ---

    Also:

    >logic
     
    PUNK123 likes this.
  9. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,275
    i want to stop posting here so bad but i cant stop myself from saying that even though i have nothing against religion i do have a problem with parents sculpting a child's (religious) belief at a young age because that is something they should decide on their own ;-;
     
  10. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    I get your point. But the problem is that you can't just keep kids in some kind of "religious vacuum" until they're old enough to start making informed decisions. Kids are like sponges. They pick up any ideas and vibes (good, bad, ugly, whatever) floating about whether or not they're explicitly taught them.

    A classic case of this is when the Quakers of the mid-1800s refused to teach their children about Quaker beliefs (until they were ready) and what wound up happening is that the kids instead learned a bunch of old superstitions and BS (like black cats, walking under ladders, breaking mirrors, etc.) from the household servants.
    Basically, in my mind, you have two choices:
    1. You explicitly impart a particular belief-system to a kid, but ensure that process also teaches them that they'll need to make up their own mind once they're old enough.
    2. You avoid any explicit instruction (very difficult, 'cos even if you're not teaching A, how do you know you're not teaching anti-A?) and run the risk that the kid picks up some weird/wacky/even dangerous ideas from others around them who're less disciplined than you.
    In the end it's each parents' choice, and I guess that's the main/final point of things: it's the parents' choice about what model they employ to raise their kid. Ofc, we can disagree as to whether they're employing said model correctly, but at the end of the day it's out of our hands.
     
    hierbo and PUNK123 like this.
  11. Fernegulus

    Fernegulus Bison Rider

    Messages:
    400
    1. Churches, not religions. Religion is just a concept, church is an organisation which too often exploits faith of their followers, which is right. Religion itself can't abuse anyone.

    2. Is this wrong in any way?

    3. From a sociological-moral point of view, religion is a set of rules which are a standard to a follower's morality. Also, from that point of view, an atheist is just a man who said "I do not need to fear hell in order to act nicely towards other people." And if someone is not on that stage of moral and intellectual development (which was a thing mainly in the past), a religion gives you strict bounds to follow, unleashes you from the burden of decisions, and binds you to a leash of strict letter of the law.
     
  12. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk gaurenteed shitter

    Messages:
    793
    I'm just going to jump into the middle of this and give my two cents on the matter.

    1) Agree on this one, makes perfect sense.

    2 and 3) While parents are in a way expected to pass a number of their beliefs and values on to their children, and are most definitely expected to show them how to behave in order to get along with people and succeed in life, faith remains a gray area. Generally I think it's not a bad thing (in the case of most religions) because it (typically) gives followers a reason to behave well in this life, meaning not committing crimes and other atrocities. In that respect, religion's great. But let's say, for the sake of example, that I think up a religion on my own, creating a deity that clearly does not exist, and somehow manage to spread this religion all across the globe, amassing a large number of followers. Even if my religion leads people to behave in a way that benefits the world, is it okay that I'm tricking them into it? That I'm making them believe a lie? In essence, is it okay to do the wrong thing for the right reasons?
    Again, I'm not saying all religions are wrong. The argument for the existence of God or gods has gone on far too long and I don't intend to revive it. Strictly speaking, we can't prove that they are correct or incorrect - that's just the nature of faith. But is it okay for us to enforce a code of beliefs and a code of law on a child based on something that may or may not be true, for the sake of keeping them in line?

    I can't come up with an answer to that question myself. Honestly, I think that the answer will be based on one's opinion. But if we're basing the answer to this question on opinion, don't you think we should give everyone the chance to form their own?
     
  13. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    Answering this:
    But also taking into account this:
    And this:
    Ofc, at the end if the day, everyone forms their own opinion; so in a sense you're correct in saying "the answer will be based on one's opinion"; but I believe there are some factors that, when laid out, tend to have the effect of making (most) people draw similar conclusions bc of their (rather compelling) pragmatic nature.

    So, re: enforcing beliefs and laws for the sake of keeping people in line, consider the following:
    • How well, as a society, could we continue to function without: a) external codes of conduct that explicitly state some dos/don'ts, and b) internal codes of conduct (that, roughly, more or less, match the external codes) that people habitually follow?
    • If there were no external codes then mayhem, chaos, and the rule of might (i.e. "my stick is bigger than yours") would be the order of the day.
    • If there were no internal codes then people would have to choose between i) constantly stopping to check their actions/intended actions against the external code of dos/don'ts, or ii) blindly acting and hoping that they've remembered the rules right, or that they'll manage to get lucky and no break any rules, or al least get lucky and not break any rules where they'll get caught.
    • Thus, as a society, it's clear that codes of conduct (both external and internal) are needed for life to go on.
    • Additionally, consider that if people were left to their own devices and allowed to form their own code(s) (something, as I've already said to Punk, I don't believe is actually possible: children are always influenced heavily by those around them-- it's instinctual for them to sponge up stuff, it's just how they work) then what's the chances that they form a code that, somewhere down in the fine print, reads: I may do whatever I want, because I am the most important/valuable person here; and, in fact, I am the only 'real' person here-- everyone else is just here to suit my needs.
    • The above might seem a little extreme, but then consider that that's basically how babies and small children view the world. They're utterly (cute) self-little-pricks. How might life be if everyone you ever met secretly believed this kind of crap, even if they put on a nice face when you were talking to them? In a world full of immoral bastards, only the most douchey will survive. Hmm... :huh?:
    There. Draw your own opinion re: beating some kind of code/s into a child's head prior to allowing them to start refining their own view of the world. Is it okay? :wink:

    Addendum:
    Ofc, we could just say "fook society! let's all just be individuals, or smaller groups of friends/immediate family!"; however, the inescapable truth is that there are simply too many people in this world to get away with that. You'll always be bumping into someone else. And, for my money, I'd prefer the version of the world where the other guy has a deep-seated belief that it's "wrong" to shove a knife in my neck when I'm not looking. Just, ye know, fwiw. ::P:
     
  14. NinjaCell

    NinjaCell Haxor

    Messages:
    358
    If by "keeping them in line" you mean stopping them from committing murder/theft etc, that works for all moral systems not just religion. When people teach their children to do what ever they believe to be "good" they don't think about whether it is for the good of the human race as a whole. Well, some people might, but most people just teach their kids what they believe to be right. As in truly right.

    In the sense that if they saw someone (Jeff) murder his innocent brother (Colin) for material gain, they wouldn't try to understand that Jeff may just think that striving for pleasure is right, they would think that it was wrong no matter his actions. They believe killing people is bad. The end.

    What if Jeff was doing it for the good of the human race? Some people might agree, but others may always object.

    The problem is that you can't prove that your sense of "right" is better than someone else's.

    Personally, I believe sharing your faith with your child is not wrong in the slightest. Why should a religious person follow some other equally unprovable moral system just for one aspect of their lives? You can say that belief and morals are subjective, but you are assuming a base moral truth that everyone believes in. This may work for laws with almost unanimous majority support such as murder, but here many, many of the religious (and non-religious) people will disagree with you.

    I don't think there is a total majority one way or the other, so it is okay legally for people to do this. Sharing your faith that is. You might think tricking people is okay, you might think Robin Hood justice is okay, even though it is illegal.
    In terms of whether we should give people a chance to form their own opinion, I don't know why people only focus on religion with this. First, I think that telling your child something is true, does not mean that they cannot form their own opinion later.

    Secondly, you seem to think that telling a kid that something is true is forcing them to believe it and that that is wrong. You also seem to think that it is okay if you are passing on beliefs that are right. I'll ignore the "big crimes", but are you going to tell your child not to instruct their child in unprovable beliefs? Can you prove that telling a child that in itself is right?
     
    hierbo and FuzzyBlueBaron like this.
  15. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    This.

    Bloody fantastic piece of paradoxical argument there, @NinjaCell. Bloody flaming fantastic! Very smoothly done; I take my hat off to you, sir. ::):
     
    NinjaCell likes this.
  16. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk gaurenteed shitter

    Messages:
    793
    This is quite correct, however it is proven that children are far more impressionable than adults are, which means it's difficult to give them a proper chance to form their own beliefs once they've been raised a certain way.
    This confuses me, because you just previously stated the "right" is different for each person - that it is an idea, not an actual thing...

    My conclusion itself was mostly inconclusive, suggesting only that I believe children deserve the right to grow up without having religious beliefs pressed upon them while they are impressionable. Does anything about what I said suggest that I would ever do what you imply I would do?
    And if you want an answer to your question, it's no. I have no intent of fathering a child any time soon, but I still think that telling a child anything of your own beliefs in terms of religion, including lack of religion or disbelief in religion, is already influencing them.

    Clearly we cannot avoid influencing our children, unless we all agree to put them in white rooms since their time of birth and wait until they come of age before exposing them to the world (which I do not think is a wise course of action, nor do I think people would be willing to do it, even for the sake of experimentation). Some explanation, some experience is necessary, but considering how very impressionable children are, I equate the teaching of religious beliefs to a child to... hm... conditioning a dog to perform a trick. Not cruel, necessarily, but certainly a form of manipulation, because neither the dog nor the child know any better. I've seen children manipulated in other ways, too - again, not necessarily cruel ways, but it happens: for example, a parent who never got to live out their dream of being a sports star begins teaching their son or daughter athletics at an early age with the subconscious intent of living vicariously through them - of making their child's success their own success.

    Is this a bad thing in the long term? I can't say for certain, but I do think it is manipulation, and I am inclined to dislike manipulation.

    Then again, if you will allow me to weaken my own argument... exposing a child to anything at all might be considered manipulation.

    Hm. The root conundrum, as you already seemed to hint at, NinjaCell (if not stated outright) is that we cannot really prove what is right or wrong - at least, not enough to convince anyone of our position. The bottom line is, not one of us can ever prove something to be just. But we do agree (for the most part) on a number of things that are most definitely wrong, generally through the golden rule, as I see it - treat others as you would want to be treated. Most people want to be treated kindly and not hurt in any way, so a great majority of us adhere to this ideal, and a great many laws sprang up with this rule as a basis.

    Faith, I suppose, is one way of ensuring that a child does not go against these expectations. Well, that's what it is from a very non-religious point of view, anyway.
    Barring faith, laws assure punishment for those who break societal laws to the detriment of others.

    So, if I look at it objectively, having faith is probably more helpful than not having it, since one will have two lines of defense to prevent one's own misbehavior. And from that basis I cannot really criticize the passing of religion to one's children. Truly, my complaint lies with two things only:
    - Teaching a child something that may in the end be incorrect seems cruel in my eyes. I always think of Santa Claus, the ever-popular childhood myth, and how many children believe in him for years before they are informed as to the truth.
    - I want to believe that people do not need to think they will be punished to do the right thing. Because the behavioral influence of religion ultimately comes down to that, correct? "Behave well in this life, and you will be rewarded in the next, but behave badly, and you will be punished," seems to be the general consensus. As a sort of... hopeful cynic, for lack of a better term, I want to see people treat others well without thinking about whether they will gain or lose something for it. I want to see "good" behavior come from within someone, not from without.


    ... *Exhales*
    It is incredibly hypocritical of me to say this, but if you gents have something more to add, please try to aim for brevity. My knowledge of philosphy is small, and I've gone and worn myself out already.
    ... I also apologize for my crude attempts to imitate the language of an sophisticated gentleman, when I am in fact, a very unsophisticated college student. At this point it is but a... *ahem.* It's kind of become a silly habit. If it annoys you I can stop.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  17. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    2014-04-11-yourself1.png 2014-04-11-yourself2.png 2014-04-11-yourself3.png

    Adam4d is probably my favourite webcomic out there, tbh. Also, the latest one (http://adam4d.com/theology-nerd/) basically sums up a goodly portion of who I am. ^_^
     
  18. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    And another one, because I'm feeling capricious. :dance:
    2014-11-04-contradictions1.png 2014-11-04-contradictions2.png
     
  19. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,275
    jesus did not live I sinless life once upon a time when I went to church(years ago)the pastor talked him attacking a merchant selling birds(or some crap)anyway even if that is wrong id prefer it if you let me die in eternal damnation plz and thankyou rather than believe in something that (I believe) contradicts itself and cannot be proven ::D:

    *waits for fuzzy to insinuate that I don't know what im talking about
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
  20. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    I beg your pardon; I'd like to think I try to avoid insinuation and instead call people out as ignominious ignoramuses when they are acting as such.

    ...

    Jerk.

    {edit}
    Seriously though, Punk, that last part in your post was unnecessary. Either a) you do know what you're talking about (in which case I have no need to correct you), or b) you don't know what you're talking about (in which case I might choose to correct you); but, either way, by tacking on that last part ("insinuate that I don't know what im talking about") you're pre-emptively getting defensive and snarky--which really makes for poor conversation.

    Please, I realise you're younger and feeling the need to "prezzie-up" when touting your opinion in front of older, wilier members; but, really, all it does is add unwanted brazen bluster and bravado. Save the posturing for the street, kid; we're talking philosophy here! :huh?:
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
Mods: BlueLuigi