Evangelical Ignorance and the Effect on the Public

[iNow]

I agree with everything in your post, moo, except your point that religion is 100% of the child's environment. We know it's not.

 

However, to the true thrust of your post, I personally see religion as a SIGNIFICANTLY greater percentage of the child's conscious and unconscious existence than any video game could be, and I think this is the point you were making. A video game maybe accounts for 5-10% of the childs life, whereas religion would seldom go below 50%.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: My percentages above are ad hoc and used only to make a point regarding scope. Each child is different, and there will be exceptions to both, but I think most here will agree that the percentage of a child's life impacted by religion is greater than the percentage of a child's life impacted by a video game.

 

 

But, then again, maybe everyone thinks I'm wrong and it's just me against the world.

[mooeypoo]

I agree with everything in your post, moo, except your point that religion is 100% of the child's environment. We know it's not.

Do we? I actually think it is in evangelical societies.. After watching "Jesus Camp", and "Hell House", and reading some evangelical 'tutoring' and 'parenting tutoring' websites and articles, I find that they're EXTREMELY extreme with their "religion is *everything*" view.

 

I mean.. how further do you go than having a foreign-language class with an emphasis on evangelism..?? "The Christian Guide to Spanish" ??

 

I disagree with you. I think Evangelical kids have 110% of their lives revolving around religious dogmas, God, and anti-science. I really do.

 

 

However, to the true thrust of your post, I personally see religion as a SIGNIFICANTLY greater percentage of the child's conscious and unconscious existence than any video game could be, and I think this is the point you were making. A video game maybe accounts for 5-10% of the childs life, whereas religion would seldom go below 50%.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: My percentages above are ad hoc and used only to make a point regarding scope. Each child is different, and there will be exceptions to both, but I think most here will agree that the percentage of a child's life impacted by religion is greater than the percentage of a child's life impacted by a video game.

 

 

But, then again, maybe everyone thinks I'm wrong and it's just me against the world.

 

I agree, so if we're the only one, at least we're not alone

 

 

~moo

[iNow]

I think Evangelical kids have 110% of their lives revolving around religious dogmas, God, and anti-science. I really do.

 

Don't they ever get hungry, or have to urinate?

 

 

The extra 10% is supernatural lovin'.

[ydoaPs]

Don't they ever get hungry, or have to urinate?

Jesus-O's for breakfast and a Satan toilet seat.

[mooeypoo]

Jesus-O's for breakfast and a Satan toilet seat.

Yea, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Check this out, if you guys are still doubting these kids have nothing *other* than religion in their lives, even when interacting with other aspects of reality:

 

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/homeschoolevangelist/

 

http://www.cheaofca.org/preschool.jsp

 

and there's more, from a google search.

 

This is both sad and extremely scary.

 

 

~moo

[ydoaPs]

Yea, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Check this out, if you guys are still doubting these kids have nothing *other* than religion in their lives, even when interacting with other aspects of reality:

 

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/homeschoolevangelist/

 

http://www.cheaofca.org/preschool.jsp

 

and there's more, from a google search.

 

This is both sad and extremely scary.

 

 

~moo

 

Enter Jesus Camp.

[mooeypoo]

Enter Jesus Camp.

Yah I've seen that movie (and talked about it in the other topics in the thread). Sad. Scary, veryyy veryy scary.

 

And it's EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

Again, I agree, but I'm still not sure how this speaks to your position of violent video games having a greater impact than religion.

 

Greater negative impact (was I believe how you put it). I think video games are more prevalent than religious zealots. Millions of video games, thousands (or maybe only hundreds) of screaming zealots.

 

That's my math, anyway, based on what (IMO) constitutes a dangerous religious influence. Obviously if you feel that no video games are dangerous and all religious influence is, then you're going to come up with a different opinion.

 

Which of course is why so many die-hard progressives feel undermined and unrepresented by Democrats, just as many die-hard christian conservatives feel undermined and unrepresented by Republicans. My advice to those people is: Wake up and smell the coffee -- you're an extremist, you're not even close to being in the majority, and you're just plain wrong.

[iNow]

Greater negative impact (was I believe how you put it). I think video games are more prevalent than religious zealots. Millions of video games, thousands (or maybe only hundreds) of screaming zealots.

 

That's my math, anyway, based on what (IMO) constitutes a dangerous religious influence. Obviously if you feel that no video games are dangerous and all religious influence is, then you're going to come up with a different opinion.

I don't feel that "no" video games are dangerous.

I don't feel that "all" religious influence is dangerous.

 

I do still come up with a different opinion, that the negative impact of religion is greater than the negative impact of violent video games. I've explained many reasons why above, as have others who agree.

 

Thanks for the response.

[Mr Skeptic]

I do still come up with a different opinion, that the negative impact of religion is greater than the negative impact of violent video games. I've explained many reasons why above, as have others who agree.

 

What's the negative impact of religion, though? I assume you are talking about Christianity. Christianity (ie, following Christ) should be a positive influence. Christ was very clear on several topics such as "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Love your enemies," "Forgive," and other such teachings. Did anything that Christ taught have negative impact?

 

Contrast this to the "teachings" of violent video games, such as "Screw hookers then kill them to get your money back," "Running over pedestrians gives you points," and "Why have safe sex when you can't get STD's in the game?"

[ydoaPs]

Millions of video games, thousands (or maybe only hundreds) of screaming zealots.

IIRC, 4% Evangelicals and growing. Given US population> 200 million, I'd say you are a little off on your screaming zealot number.

[ecoli]

IIRC, 4% Evangelicals and growing. Given US population> 200 million, I'd say you are a little off on your screaming zealot number.

300 mill.

[Reaper]

What's the negative impact of religion, though? I assume you are talking about Christianity. Christianity (ie, following Christ) should be a positive influence. Christ was very clear on several topics such as "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Love your enemies," "Forgive," and other such teachings. Did anything that Christ taught have negative impact?

 

It is also said that in Armageddon, Christ is also very clear that he will slay the non-believers and the "sinful", and then throw them in a pool of burning brimstone.

 

The bible, in both testaments, and the Quran for that matter, also makes it clear to slay or enslave anybody who doesn't agree with the current religious dogma

 

Here's a small sample: "Psalm 3:7: Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly."

 

and 2 more from Revelations

 

"Revelations 20:10 : And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

 

"Revelations 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

 

Yay! We get to die three times (if you count the first one before Judgment Day).

[iNow]

I assume you are talking about Christianity.

No, I'm talking about religion.

 

 

Christianity (ie, following Christ) should be a positive influence. Christ was very clear on several topics such as "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Love your enemies," "Forgive," and other such teachings. Did anything that Christ taught have negative impact?

The basis of the teachings and what actually happens as a result of religious practice are two completely seperate things. There are MANY other things taught that do not align at all with your three examples above (many of which were described in this very thread).

 

Contrast this to the "teachings" of violent video games, such as "Screw hookers then kill them to get your money back," "Running over pedestrians gives you points," and "Why have safe sex when you can't get STD's in the game?"

Recall that my argument is about scope of that impact, not the existence or nonexistence of it. I've taken a lot of care to present it this way in this thread, and I encourage you to go back and refresh yourself on my previous responses before replying to me again.

 

Cheers.

[Mr Skeptic]

It is also said that in Armageddon, Christ is also very clear that he will slay the non-believers and the "sinful", and then throw them in a pool of burning brimstone.

 

Yes, God is in charge of punishing the evil/sinful/non-believers.

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

Are you as a non-believer afraid of what God himself will do to you?

 

The bible, in both testaments, and the Quran for that matter, also makes it clear to slay or enslave anybody who doesn't agree with the current religious dogma

 

Um, no. Not the Bible, anyhow. Where did you get that from? Stuff that says for people, not God, to slay or enslave non-believers? (The clearing of the promised land is a different story)

[ydoaPs]

Um, no. Not the Bible, anyhow.

 

You might want to re-read it.

[Mr Skeptic]

The basis of the teachings and what actually happens as a result of religious practice are two completely seperate things. There are MANY other things taught that do not align at all with your three examples above (many of which were described in this very thread).

 

How can you say that the problem is religion then, if what they are doing is different then what their religion says they should be doing? The things many people do in the name of religion are the very things their religion says they should not do!

 

Science has many teachings too, and there are atrocities committed in the name of science all the time. For example, there are a huge number of whales hunted in Japan for "scientific" purposes. The teachings of evolution were used to justify racism countless times, including the Holocaust.

 

Science, unlike religion, has actually created new weapons as opposed to just ideologies. The same things learned about some things can be used for good or evil, eg nuclear power vs nuclear weapons, medicine/biochemistry versus drugs/chemical weapons, etc.

 

---

 

In summary, just because something bad was done in the name of religion (or science) does not mean that religion (or science) is to blame for it. The problem is not religion (or science), but rather people who are easily manipulated.

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers, regardless of their ideology.

[john5746]

How can you say that the problem is religion then, if what they are doing is different then what their religion says they should be doing? The things many people do in the name of religion are the very things their religion says they should not do!

 

Science has many teachings too, and there are atrocities committed in the name of science all the time. For example, there are a huge number of whales hunted in Japan for "scientific" purposes. The teachings of evolution were used to justify racism countless times, including the Holocaust.

 

Science, unlike religion, has actually created new weapons as opposed to just ideologies. The same things learned about some things can be used for good or evil, eg nuclear power vs nuclear weapons, medicine/biochemistry versus drugs/chemical weapons, etc.

 

---

 

In summary, just because something bad was done in the name of religion (or science) does not mean that religion (or science) is to blame for it. The problem is not religion (or science), but rather people who are easily manipulated.

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers, regardless of their ideology.

 

You make a valid point, however I would argue that Religion can be used more readily to manipulate people. Science says nothing of morality, much like a tool. Religion is more of a "how to" guide. And that guide is not very clear and is obviously misinterpreted all the time. It also claims that other "how to" guides are rubish and the people using those guides are wrong.

 

If you kill someone with a wrench, well that is clearly the not the fault of the wrench. If you kill someone because of some faulty instructions, then I think the instructions are partly to blame.

 

Holocaust from evolution theory? I think religious persecution had much more to do with it than any science theory.

[ParanoiA]

Bang up post Skeptic. Sorry, I have nothing better to add.

[ydoaPs]

In summary, just because something bad was done in the name of religion (or science) does not mean that religion (or science) is to blame for it. The problem is not religion (or science), but rather people who are easily manipulated.

Yea. You're right. People killing other people because they don't believe the same things has nothing to do with a religion whose holy text tells them to kill non-believers.

[iNow]

How can you say that the problem is religion then, if what they are doing is different then what their religion says they should be doing? The things many people do in the name of religion are the very things their religion says they should not do!

You are opening from a premise that the teachings are positive, but as we've been saying, the teachings themselves are ALL open for interpretation. Your stance shared previously:

 

What's the negative impact of religion, though? I assume you are talking about Christianity. Christianity (ie, following Christ) should be a positive influence.

 

...shows your own interpretation. It discusses what "should" happen, not what does.

 

Your question of the negative impact has already been breifly touched upon in this thread. This thread itself was opened to discuss one shining example of a negative impact of religion.

 

As has also been discussed already in this thread, the interpretations are open, and different people will arrive at different understandings from the same exact information. You seem to agree with this yourself, yet you use it as a foundation in your argument (as if I disagree with that). Due to the fact that many of your comments have already been addressed it appears that you are either ignoring previously articulated points or you have not read them. This is part of the reason I asked you to go back and review the thread (and my posts) prior to responding.

 

However, it is possible that I've done a poor job of describing the issue as I see it, so I'll include more below.

 

This differing interpretation of the same texts, the internally inconsistencies in religious teachings, the selective sampling and representation by those who argue in favor or for certain actions... These all result in the issues we are discussing here, and the problems religion causes us societally.

 

There are groups, using the exact same teachings as their motivation, engaging in activities such as Hell House, or boycotting stem cell research, or saying that homosexuality is an abomination, or that you must not eat meat on Friday, or that pork is dirty, or that women must cover their face and submiss to the patriarch, or that one must turn and pray toward mecca five times daily, or that we all must follow a set of arbitrary guidelines (and that those who do not are wrong), or that ellipsis... Scaring people into submission by describing how they are going to burn for eternity if they choose otherwise, using our evolved tendencies toward group behavior and social modelling to create cult like collections of people who have forfeighted critical thought and chosen instead to be led like sheep. If the teachings were so straight forward, we would have none of this.

 

Further, I don't accept your argument that religion is not at fault, and that it's only those who manipulate it that cause problems. All religion is manipulation. All teachings are interpretation. You cannot claim that there is a simple absolute premise of religion equally accepted by all, since this thread itself is a discussion of a group that HAS taken an alternate interpretation and premise which is NOT accepted by all.

 

Additionally, the above logic which you state (it's not religion, but people misusing it) could equally be applied to violent video games, and research has shown that the games themselves have a negative impact. This is a further chink in the armor of your approach to this discussion.

 

You cannot pick and choose when and where to apply the information to suit your purposes. That is the exact problem I've been discussing here with religion itself. Your premise that religion cannot be considered negative is both faulty and unsupportable.

 

 

Science has many teachings too, and there are atrocities committed in the name of science all the time. For example, there are a huge number of whales hunted in Japan for "scientific" purposes. The teachings of evolution were used to justify racism countless times, including the Holocaust.

Agreed. But that is not the same. The teachings of science are for increased understanding of nature, not to impose moral guidelines and behavioral codes.

 

Science shows us. Religion tells us. Big difference.

 

 

In summary, just because something bad was done in the name of religion (or science) does not mean that religion (or science) is to blame for it. The problem is not religion (or science), but rather people who are easily manipulated.

Agreed, as I've shared previously in this thread. However, while I am using single instances of the misuse of religion to demonstrate a few of my points, in a broader context I'm describing how religion itself is detrimental to critical thought and advancement of our species, that it is purely a method of social grouping which uses unprovable statements and claims of supernatural ethereal beings to keep control of great masses of people.

 

Also, again, the intent of science is not to manipulate people, but to better understand nature itself and seek continual improvement in that understanding. The intent of religion is to tell us all how we should live and to dicate what will happen if we do not abide by those guidelines. Again, big difference.

 

Either way, this thread is not about science versus religion. It's about evangelical ignorance and the effect on the public, and I have been showing how the distinction between evangelicalism and religion itself is a fine line indeed.

[Pangloss]

IIRC, 4% Evangelicals and growing. Given US population> 200 million, I'd say you are a little off on your screaming zealot number.

 

No, I don't think I am. Not all evangelicals are either (a) screaming zealots, or (b) a danger to their children. For most of them it's not so much a matter of rejecting logic and reason as it is a way of making religion more of a positive moral influence on their own lives.

 

I know quite a few evangelicals, including a family putting their son through engineering school and another who's daughter is aiming at a PhD in biology. One of my own family members works for James Dobson, and their son is a very intelligent and thoughtful CPA and as well-balanced an individual as you are likely to meet. I should know -- I baby-sat the tyke. Not a screaming zealot in the bunch. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

Prejudice is a dangerous thing, even when it is politically correct. ESPECIALLY when it is politically correct.

[ydoaPs]

Prejudice is a dangerous thing, even when it is politically correct. ESPECIALLY when it is politically correct.

 

Prejudice, eh? I'd be interested to see examples of my "politically correct prejudice". I've posted 2 or 3 times in this thread and none of these posts contained my opinion on the subject.

[Pangloss]

Huh? You certainly posted an opinion. Or did you forget that you used the words "I'd say"?

 

IIRC, 4% Evangelicals and growing. Given US population> 200 million, I'd say you are a little off on your screaming zealot number.

[ydoaPs]

Huh? You certainly posted an opinion. Or did you forget that you used the words "I'd say"?

What does that say about my opinion? It merely said I thought you are wrong on your numbers(and I still do, but it's about your determination of them rather than any prejudice of mine).