vlad321 said:
I switched the bolded parts to be me talking; pardon the possible confusion.
Same.
Again. <-This (Lateral expansion)
To be sure, they certainly appear that way, but that does not negate the problem that one has to rely on seeing more examples of science ("seeing", effectively) in order to justify them. Although I might like doing that, it certainly offers no assurance as to the it's validity. For all we know, every advancement or confirmation of a theory could be the result of some manipulation of that vat-brain, or worse.
Yes indeed it could. But from what we see and know it was due science. If you read my post on the beliefs up above then you'll see that I'm willing to accept our existance is due to something creating us, I just dislike religion as it is and how it affects our world.
I see what you're saying, but that would depend on what the parent thinks has been observed or proven (notwithstanding), and many are completely assured (justifiably or not) of what they believe spiritually.
I fully agree with that, I just wish that is how the world worked since children who have been manipulated by the parents eventually grow up. Then the ideas of the parents are born anew and a cycle of destruction (may not be the right word) keeps on going. Humans just don't need this. Enough has happened for people to see what should and shouldn't be impressed on children.
I think this would hinge upon the correctness (is that a word?) of the above paragraph; I would posit that the consequences of that idead would mean we shouldn't teach our children anything, lest we be hindering progress. However, teaching them what we know and think can also foster progress and advancement, as is evident in technology and the like.
Correctness is a word and I was just kidding with having them think like me. I'd much rather have them completely independent from me when they grow up (I only use smilys to signifying jokes). And I don't mean don't teach them anything, they obviously have to learn things, but as with the veggies and beliefs, there is a difference between learning math, science, a language (wherever they live), poetry, and such and teaching them about god and religion. One has the benefits that the child will live a decent life, while the other has yet to show any positive or negative feedback on life, or afterlife if it does exist.
And that's probably true; he probably would like someone who was able to believe in him afer having been exposed to otheror no religious ideas. However, it is made clear in Christianity that believing in him is first and foremost the most important thing, and thus whatever blessing a person may receive for having gone through much would be supplanted by the necessity of them not going to hell.
Very well, but all that does not mean that children should be preached to, if they find and choose god then they will find him when they are older as well. The whole thing just seems like parents are "cheating" their children's entrance to heaven. Let's teach them early before they can resist and they are sure to go to heaven if they stick with it. It just seems like a shortcut to what belief is meant to be, that is, something you reached the conclusion to by yourself, not based on other's beliefs. This goes with the paragraphh underneath. Is it really belief in god if the only reason you believe in him is becaause your parents taught you that way?
Yeah, I'll agree with that; I too have met a lot of Christians who have put next to no thought of why the believe.
Well then, we can ignore this sectino from now on since we're in agreement.
|
