Note: this is in "Christianity" because it's the religion most of us have the most contact with, but doesn't restrict itself to it.

In this thread, it was asked what each of us would do with ultimate political power. Although I had already answered, one thing later came to mind, but it's more of a religious subject, instead of a political one, so it deserves a separate thread (to avoid going offtopic on that one).

Simply, what I'd do is this: institute real religious education. To everyone. In other words, "you want to be religious? Fine, but you'll know about it. All of it."

By "real" education, of course, I mean going much further than saying "this is true". I mean teaching people about comparative religion, history of religion, the historical facts about at least the 5 top religions, critical study of their holy books and writings, and the philosophies they teach.

You see, I think that much of the problem -- and a large part of the cause of so much religion -- is that most believers don't really know much about religion - including their own.

Therefore, they think their religion is unique, special. They don't know its history. They don't know how it started, other than "this guy lived, and said this and this". They don't know a lot of what it teaches. They have no idea that there are several branches within it, some of which actually contradict each other.

They believe their own religion is original. They have no idea, for instance, that, centuries before Jesus, there were already mythological characters who, stories tell, were born of a virgin, entered a place riding a donkey, healed the sick, died, and resurrected after 3 days. This is just a single example; there are many more.

They were so indoctrinated in their religion, that they think that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs has to be in "denial" about something so "obvious".

They think their religion is different from all the others, that it teaches something fundamentally different. They really don't know any better. But if it was up to me, they would.

This would not "end" religion. It would, however, reduce blind faith and fanaticism. It would make people actually know about several religions, including their own, and stop thinking of it as "us versus them", as "we're of God, others are all of the Devil and are all going to hell".

I believe one of the causes of so much religious faith and fundamentalistm is ignorance. If people were to actually learn, things would be much better. People would actually have to think about their faith, about other faiths, about which one interprets the world better - if at all. The ones who remained religious, would do so out of conscious choice, not by default.

And, yes, I believe atheism would rise, because without blind faith and ignorance, with full awareness of what it really says, means and implies, religion suddently becomes much less appealing.

The only problem with that is religion is a very nice tool for keeping people in check. Fear of the unknown makes people love their government even more, and it's nice to think that the guy with his hand on the nuke button is worshiping the same God as they are.

Furthermore, how may parents are going to allow this? There are some fundamentalist catholics down the street, they have five children (wait, six? Or is it seven) and with another one on the way. The look on the fathers face when my father (rather foolishly) told him I was an atheist was priceless. These kind of people would not let their children go to those kind of classes.

Personally I think this a very good idea, I think every Christian (for example) should know about the Crusades, the witch burnings, the inquisition etc. In vivid detail.

You're right, but that's why this follows (as I say in the beginning) the "what would you do if you were absolute dictator" thread.

I don't expect this to happen, much like I don't expect world peace.

Look at what I found:

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.[/align]

overcaffein8d: a bit offtopic... and I had posted a link to it about a year ago, in the blog. Still funny (because it could be true), though.

If you value education above all else, it is your God. Dont confuse education with intelligence though. Or intelligence with wisdom.

You want to prove your point to the world. The world has to see things your way because it is the right way and if I could educate them, they would see.

All of that is nothing. Christ lives in my heart. I dont need to know the why or how or who or when and I really could care less. Christ lives in my heart.

You could shove facts down my throat for years then tell me to deny christ or die, and I would choose death. And I'm not as fanatical as most.

I would say to you, " If you could feel, even for a second, what I do, Your questions and doubts would be put into proper perspective".

So illusion is the "proper perspective?" Why not accept reality?

1) While I agree that wisdom, which is primarily common sense, is normally not gained through education, intelligence is, intelligence is, among a few other things, the ability to view the world logically and with reason.

2) No doubt you would eventually settle on the tried and true 'atheists argue when they're being burnt'.

• See that bonfire
• Therefore God exists
  

3) I don't know how much you know about advertising, but when you really want to force something into the consumers mind you repeat it over and over. Then they start to just subconsciously believe what you've said, and eventually they just start humming that tune over and over. Repeating it to themselves thinking "OH I made this decision myself".
Yeah, I like that parallel. And because I do I'm going to run with it.
Advertising
Buy *product*, we've got it at INSANE PRICES
CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP, come in and take a look.
Everything in-store CHEAP.
Idea in consumers head: Cheap, and it's my own decision that I'm buying an item with a 500% sell-price

Religion
Christ loves you and will be in your heart for ever.
Christ loves me and lives in my heart, look how happy I am.
I have a 2nd cousin who has christ in my heart and he's a millionaire.
I've loved christ since I was a kid. now I'm successful

Idea in consumers head: I love christ, it was my own decision to love christ, NOTHING CAN TURN ME A WAY.

Secondly, facts are what the universe IS, honey, as much as we like to think 'FACTS ARE BAD, THEY DON'T MAKE ME FEEL NICE AND FUZZY INSIDE', they are what's really out there. The universe doesn't have to be warm, just because you want it to be.

1. A lifetime of education can not raise your intelligence one scintilla. Education will give you knowledge. Intelligence is the practical application of wisdom and that aforementioned knowledge.

2. No, Gods existence does not require my belief, or your proof.

3. No one sold me God. He showed up when I looked.[/b]

This post was last modified: 01-14-2007 11:41 AM by NoMereMortal.

So you accept the flying spagetti monster also, since he appeared when I looked? What about the great pumpkin? The boogey man?

1) A good definition, I beg to differ, but this is not the thread.

2) Proof is universal, it is not mine our yours. It is objective and has no emotion attached. Proof is undeniable fact, gods existence does require proof, because it is a claim, a claim must be backed up with proof, and because it is an extraordinary claim, it must have extraordinary proof.

3)'Hey, guess what, a talking cheese appeared to me in my sleep and told me to kill you.'
That above statement is actually more sane than what you are saying.

1. Because we have proof cheese exists.
2. Because people dream
   

Lets try something outside of a dream.
'Hey I was feeling bad about myself and suddenly I felt like I needed a friend, this guy said that the Flying spaghetti monster loved me.'
This is even more sane than 'God exists' because:

1. Spaghetti exists.
   

There are demons that do different things. I seriously think you might be afflicted by a demon of oppression. You have an underlying resentfulness that precludes any constructive conversation. I've decided to read your posts only, not to answer. I won't indulge a demon.

Now, you will think this preposterous. I'm being totally serious.

This post was last modified: 01-15-2007 10:33 AM by NoMereMortal.

God created the cheese, the spaghetti, the dream and you.

The FSM created your god, the dream, and you.

I created the FSM.

See where this line of thought leads NMM.

the way i see it, demons exist if an only if god exists. so far, nobody's been able to prove that god exists objectively.

is it really that you don't want to indulge a demon? it is one of the 10 commandments not to lie, you know.. that includes lying to yourself

This post was last modified: 01-20-2007 02:38 PM by overcaffein8d.

OVercaffein8d, thanks for posting that, I had missed the ad hominem attack where I was called a demon..

NMM,

So all you have to support your claims is name calling and personal attacks? Truly sad..

NMM,

You do realize that under that premise, nobody could ever create anything themselves, right?

what if i'm not possessed? what if am the demon?