Posted on 01/14/2014 8:25:45 PM PST by marshmallow
I'm proud of my daughter, but I can't deny that she stopped us in our religiously disinterested, bleeding-heart liberal tracks
For decades, god and religion have played no part in my life. I was baptised as a baby, but didn't make it as far as first communion. That may officially make me a Catholic in the broadest sense, but if it does, I'm one who's not so much "lapsed" as "stalled before I started".
Apart from morning assemblies and weekly hymn practices at primary school, followed by a couple of years of religious education classes at comprehensive (which I dropped as soon as exam options allowed), I have barely considered my immortal soul, much less the direction it may be heading when I die.
Over the years, when I bothered to think about it at all, I came to the conclusion that I prefer the scientific theory of life and the universe to the spiritual one. I'm most likely an atheist, but one leaning to the agnostic side of the spectrum. I know I'm a sceptic, in the true sense of the word. Or shallow. One of the two.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
From Wikipedia ...
John Stephen Jones FRS[2] (born 24 March 1944) is a Welsh geneticist and from 1995 to 1999 and 2008 to June 2010 was Head of the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London.[3][4] His studies are conducted in the Galton Laboratory. He is also a television presenter and a prize-winning author on the subject of biology, especially evolution. He is one of the contemporary popular writers on evolution. In 1996 his writing won him the Royal Society Michael Faraday Prize "for his numerous, wide ranging contributions to the public understanding of science in areas such as human evolution and variation, race, sex, inherited disease and genetic manipulation through his many broadcasts on radio and television, his lectures, popular science books, and his regular science column in The Daily Telegraph and contributions to other newspaper media".
Have a great day.
“Sorry to say, your research gets an “F” reward ...”
I think you are mistaking “my research” for your sense of humor.
Do you just tell your kids both sides of the political spectrum so as not to bias them so they can choose when they or 16 or 18?
Or how about murder. Let them decide if it’s right or wrong, don’t bias them?
I don’t really understand your point.
Here’s just 2 links to show you or Mr. Harrington how much the PTB like to promote/demote facts that fit their agendas...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
very good
I don’t talk alot of politics with my kids. However, my advice would boil down the same way - decide for yourself. they’ll be 18 soon enough and will then be allowed to pull the lever however they see fit. I can argue my case I suppose, but again, they have a much better chance of understanding my argument if they approach from a non-biased standpoint.
Religion is no different. Once their life has some context and they can understand the history theyve read...then they can make an informed decision. How many versions are there? Muslims, Jews, Christians (how many Christian flavors?), Mormons, Budhist, etc...Choose one or choose none. Just make your own choice.
As for the murder question...that’s absolutely ridiculous. How many societies on earth tolerate murder? I suppose a few. And those that do probably use religion to justify it. Muslim killing Christians or Jews.
Youre basically saying because i don’t give my kids a religous education I can’t teach them what’s morally right or wrong? Sure. Rape? Sure son. Decide for yourself if its good or bad. Give me a break.
Here’s my point. I could have my 8 year old son listen to a 1-hour presentation from a religous scholar representing Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. All would make compelling arguments that theirs is the one true faith and the only way to salvation/heaven/reincarnation/ whatever...
He will not have the experience and or mental capacity to judge who is correct. That will only come with more life experience and independence. If he wakes up at 25 and through experience and/or revalation decides the Jews have it right...so be it. He can drive over and see the local Rabbi. He can then decide how he wants to feel about people praising or mocking his decision. He can form his own response to kind Christians telling him he’s damned himself to hell.
“Youre basically saying because i don’t give my kids a religous education I can’t teach them what’s morally right or wrong?”
I did not say that at all. Nor imply it. I was addressing your logic, or lack of consistency in your reasoning.
I got to tell you, you are presenting liberal party line logic.
I’ve heard this “let the kids decide” over and over from the liberals.
“As for the murder question...that’s absolutely ridiculous. How many societies on earth tolerate murder?”
Does whether or not others tolerate something define right and wrong?
Do you just tell your kids both sides of the political spectrum so as not to bias them so they can choose when they or 16 or 18?
Or how about murder. Let them decide if it’s right or wrong, don’t bias them?
<><><><<>
One of these things is not like the others:
Choosing one’s religion
Choosing one’s politics
Choosing whether to murder or not
I’m sure you could have come up with something better than murder, because, just for the record, it’s an absurd analog.
It’s not an analogy, it’s an examination of the logic.
Tiresome to be subjected to obtuseness.
But, that’s how it goes.
I see no evidence that you have studied logic, or really understand what is meant by logic in this particular instance.
Here’s why.
Choosing a religion or a political stance is a personal matter impacting no one but the individual in question.
Not the case with murder.
See how that works?
I don’t see how you could think I’m presenting liberal party line logic. I’m just trying to point out an obvious problem with religous indoctrination. The problem being that educated, sincere people all over the world have come to radically different conclusions about God.
Can’t you see the problem in this? A problem that is only ultimately solved by one party “winning” the argument. Unfortunately not all religons proscribe to “live and let live.”
I can explain my beliefs to my children. I can be a positive role model, etc. It doesn’t change the fact that literally BILLIONS of people think I’m wrong and will ultimately suffer a horrible fate because of it.
We’re lucky to live in a country that at least allows you to explore the question from different points of view. I think I’m doing my kids a service by letting them make their own decision.
In any event, I respect your opinion and thanks for the response.
You assumed? Didn’t you ask?
Don’t you think that a convert with the name, Mohammed, would change it to a Christian name?
I was working as an usher and doing crowd supervision. A lot of families, relatives, etc had to be seated in the correct place in a crowded church and directed to the reception afterward. I just heard the name. I did not see or know the family. I would not impose on a family of strangers at such an occasion by hunting them down in a crowd and asking them questions.
Again more extraordinary parallels between science and the Genesis creation narrative.
Genesis goes from day 5 birds and fish... To day 6 animals and then humans.
What commonalities between human and non human organisms can’t explain is the theory that the 250+ proteins that are necessary to form a single cell organism were forms by random chance. In addition, there is no proof anywhere in physics to demonstrate that an effect can in fact be greater than its cause.
The idea that something can come from nothing simply contradicts physical laws of motion and the massive amount of evidence that the universe had a beginning several billion years ago.
At the end of the day you can except a supernatural cause for the universe and maintain the laws of physics or you can reject both. One makes little sense without the other.
My observation that this is a common approach among liberals is all I am saying. It doesn’t mean you are liberal per se.
“I think I’m doing my kids a service by letting them make their own decision.”
That’s the point. No matter what the approach, a parent is imparting their beliefs to their children.
“Choosing a religion or a political stance is a personal matter impacting no one but the individual in question.”
Try to pay attention.
The question is not committing murder but the belief that it is right or wrong.
Believing murder is not wrong also does not impact anyone else within the context of your premise.
So why not let the child decide when he or she is 18 if murder is right or wrong?
"What is the symbolic meaning of the proverb, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?"
Answer ...
"Essentially, the proverb of the horse and water points metaphorically to the need for each person to take ownership of his or her own life. An individual has to desire to drink, to learn, to live and to thrive. Although others may provide opportunities for nourishment, learning, advice and assistance, no one can force another to participate in real living or right choices."
>I always think these Guardian CiF stories are made up. They are always too glib, too perfect, too pat. This fits right in the mold.<
You recognize social engineering too easily to be fooled by it.
I look at CiF every day. The editorials are what are called click bait.
For instance, the British have a Dracula-looking-at-a-Cross problem when it comes to American tipping habits. So every couple of weeks is an editorial about American minimum wage and the slavery wages of waiters. Thousands descend to beat their chests on our cruelty towards our wait staff. Actually, the problem is they hate to dig their hands deep in their pockets.
And forcing the horse’s head in to the water to make him drink could end up drowning him as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.