Do people take religion too serious?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

But we can know from neurology that every human being (with a few exceptions of non functioning) thinks (ie processes information) in the same way We can also see this from observing sociology and the construction of belief. Human individualism begins before birth because every human has unique and individual experiences. As we become self aware we then process those experiences and even process the process of our own thought process. That is why humans are all different

But every mind processes (bascally) exactly the same. It is a biological computer. Hence we can see and understand how any human mind processes or thinks, even if we cannot know the data/information available to it in its processing.

There is only so much you can go on, to have a rough idea. I would think, that no matter how much education, and what ever tool you have at hand, you can still only have a limited understanding of people and how an individual could possibly behave. There is no way on saying as a fact, that everyone on this planet acts like this.

[Mr Walker]

There is only so much you can go on, to have a rough idea. I would think, that no matter how much education, and what ever tool you have at hand, you can still only have a limited understanding of people and how an individual could possibly behave. There is no way on saying as a fact, that everyone on this planet acts like this.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. It is a "scientific fact " that human minds operate identically (allowing for some physical injury or the influence of drugs etc) However our thoughts and behaviours are a result of individual programming (Eg data available) and operational thinking (the form of processing we have learned to use to "think") Hence two people can have different view on say abortion even though their minds work identically Both might value human life but one doesn't see an unborn as a human being.Or one puts more value on he rights of a mother than the right of an unborn. While they have come to entirely different conclusions they have both used identical mental processing to arrive at their conclusions.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. It is a "scientific fact " that human minds operate identically (allowing for some physical injury or the influence of drugs etc)

Link it! Prove it! Or I don't pay attention to your post.

However our thoughts and behaviours are a result of individual programming (Eg data available) and operational thinking (the form of processing we have learned to use to "think") Hence two people can have different view on say abortion even though their minds work identically Both might value human life but one doesn't see an unborn as a human being.Or one puts more value on he rights of a mother than the right of an unborn. While they have come to entirely different conclusions they have both used identical mental processing to arrive at their conclusions.

Well, you just flipped flopped in this very post. Make up your mind!!!

[Mr Walker]

Link it! Prove it! Or I don't pay attention to your post. Well, you just flipped flopped in this very post. Make up your mind!!!

Your loss I don't have to prove something to you for it to be true. And to hark back to an earlier point, this is what I meant by "wilful ignorance". You choose to remain ignorant where knowledge would force you to re-evaluate certain beliefs or opinions.

As I suspected we are talking at cross purposes, and you didn't get what i said. Organically and neurologically human brains process identically. BUT, from birth(or even before) every individual has an input of different external and internal data to process, resulting in different individual mindsets

[+Sherapy]

Your loss I don't have to prove something to you for it to be true. And to hark back to an earlier point, this is what I meant by "wilful ignorance". You choose to remain ignorant where knowledge would force you to re-evaluate certain beliefs or opinions.

As I suspected we are talking at cross purposes, and you didn't get what i said. Organically and neurologically human brains process identically. BUT, from birth(or even before) every individual has an input of different external and internal data to process, resulting in different individual mindsets

Sharon is simply asking you to support this line of reasoning with a link. She will then look at it and decide for herself if it is viable.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Sherapy

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Your loss I don't have to prove something to you for it to be true. And to hark back to an earlier point, this is what I meant by "wilful ignorance". You choose to remain ignorant where knowledge would force you to re-evaluate certain beliefs or opinions.

I chose to remain knowledgeable of what is worth considering knowledgeable. Not believing what you say flat out, is not willful ignorance. In fact, I have been taught in my education, that to take someone without a source, is actually willful ignorance. Mostly so, if the person is a pathological liar. Believing them can cause some will big problems.

As I suspected we are talking at cross purposes, and you didn't get what i said.

Now, you know how I feel.

Organically and neurologically human brains process identically. BUT, from birth(or even before) every individual has an input of different external and internal data to process, resulting in different individual mindsets

But this is not a proper answer to my question. And, oh I don't know, but this seems like your going back and forth.

Oh well, Sorry Mr. Walker........................ your posts don't make sense. And you tried soooo hard too. You have my sympathies.

Sharon is simply asking you to support this line of reasoning with a link. She will then look at it and decide for herself if it is viable.

Exactly, I thought I was clear. Oh well, *shrugs*

His loss.

[+joc]

Your loss I don't have to prove something to you for it to be true. And to hark back to an earlier point, this is what I meant by "wilful ignorance". You choose to remain ignorant where knowledge would force you to re-evaluate certain beliefs or opinions.

As I suspected we are talking at cross purposes, and you didn't get what i said. Organically and neurologically human brains process identically. BUT, from birth(or even before) every individual has an input of different external and internal data to process, resulting in different individual mindsets

On the other hand...if it is true...it should be provable. If you cannot offer any proof then how can one be convinced it is true? Your lack of trying speaks volumes!

[Mr Walker]

Sharon is simply asking you to support this line of reasoning with a link. She will then look at it and decide for herself if it is viable.

it is not my job to do this. My information comes from many sources; scientific journals magazines etc if she doesn't believe me then she needs to check it out for herself and do her own research. If she doesn't make that effort she is choosing wilful ignorance Givn the internet it is not to much to expect although much information still is not easily accessible on the net.. I found one good article in less than 30 seconds but I cant copy and paste the site. if you type in "a new map of how we think" you will find it.

[Mr Walker]

On the other hand...if it is true...it should be provable. If you cannot offer any proof then how can one be convinced it is true? Your lack of trying speaks volumes!

Why should I feel any need to prove a truth to you, when it is much more convincing if you come to it yourself? You could just as easily prove I was wrong by doing some research, if that was actually the case.

My lack of trying doesn't go to truth, but to the best way for people to discover truth. The truth is out there, but it is your job to find it, not mine to prove it. For example are you more likely to believe something you discover for yourself or something someone else tells you ?

[Bluefinger]

I wonder what would happen to the world if religion is stopped for a whole year.

Well, it wouldn't improve really. You'd still have crime, corruption, pollution, bigotry, and arrogance. Religion is only a part of culture, not its make up. Otherwise Christianity would be the same in Italy, Egpyt, Korea, the USA and Columbia.

[Frank Merton]

Wasting several hours once a week going to hear a preacher is taking religion too seriously. They are always either patronizing or sanctimonious or doctrinal or verbose or all the above.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

it is not my job to do this.

It's not my job to believe you.

My information comes from many sources; scientific journals magazines etc

Which could be questionable.

if she doesn't believe me then she needs to check it out for herself and do her own research.

Or, I can simply not believe you.

If she doesn't make that effort she is choosing wilful ignorance

Is it willful ignorance to just not believe a particular person? I do the research in so much, I have chosen to willfully be educated in things from a credible source and trusting teachers. I don't think I can trust you, if you willfully have chosen to mispell willful.

Givn the internet it is not to much to expect although much information still is not easily accessible on the net.. I found one good article in less than 30 seconds but I cant copy and paste the site. if you type in "a new map of how we think" you will find it.

Not all teachers have all the tools they need, but I have found in my experience with teachers in my job, the good ones do what they need to ........ to get the tools.

Hey, Mr. Walker, like I have said about good teachers learn too, right? Learn from me. Do you a world of good.

Well, it wouldn't improve really. You'd still have crime, corruption, pollution, bigotry, and arrogance. Religion is only a part of culture, not its make up. Otherwise Christianity would be the same in Italy, Egpyt, Korea, the USA and Columbia.

I wonder, how did you come by that thought? I'm just wondering, is there anyway that in each imagining world, how it could be good either way? Edited March 15, 2015 by Stubbly_Dooright

[+Link of Hyrule]

Wasting several hours once a week going to hear a preacher is taking religion too seriously. They are always either patronizing or sanctimonious or doctrinal or verbose or all the above.

You have soooo never been to the types of churches I've been to. The sermon today at my church was particularly engaging, certainly not patronising or sanctimonious.... doctrinal, perhaps minimally (the "J" word - Jesus - may have been mentioned once or twice), and as far as verbosity is concerned, I would have loved another half hour on top of the 25 minutes that the time was actually devoted to the sermon - it was so cut short by time restraints, so I'd say it was the very opposite of verbose.

Either way, I would not describe my morning as being "wasted", it was enlightening.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Stubbly_Dooright]

You have soooo never been to the types of churches I've been to. The sermon today at my church was particularly engaging, certainly not patronising or sanctimonious.... doctrinal, perhaps minimally (the "J" word - Jesus - may have been mentioned once or twice), and as far as verbosity is concerned, I would have loved another half hour on top of the 25 minutes that the time was actually devoted to the sermon - it was so cut short by time restraints, so I'd say it was the very opposite of verbose.

Either way, I would not describe my morning as being "wasted", it was enlightening.

Was it here, or somewhere else, that I came across someone looking up the term of church, and saying that in the past, church meant community. When anything that communicated a good experience to someone, I see as never wasted. I am not dissing your thoughts Frank Merton, I just think it is in the way one lives, and everyone should go with how they feel is wasted and what is not.

[aquatus1]

it is not my job to do this.

Yes, actually, it is. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit or a soapbox. In a discussion, you are expected to source and support the claims that you put forward.

At a minimum, you need to realize what it makes you look like when someone asks you for a source, and your response is "Eh. It's out there, somewhere. Trust me. Go find it..'

My information comes from many sources; scientific journals magazines etc if she doesn't believe me then she needs to check it out for herself and do her own research.

Wrong priority. First, she needs to determine if you have the validity and credibility to merit her time. Being that you demand automatic authority without providing any reason to accord you that authority, I can easily see why she would choose not to.

If she doesn't make that effort she is choosing wilful ignorance

No, Walker. She is choosing common sense. You, on the other hand, are choosing arrogant presumptuousness. The internet is a HUGE place, and trying to find credible and valid information on it takes time and effort, much as it does in the real world. That you refuse to acknowledge that, particularly when your own contribution amounts to nothing more than providing a link that you should have no problem providing (being that you are so familiar with the subject).

Givn the internet it is not to much to expect although much information still is not easily accessible on the net..

And that right there tells us precisely why your word on the matter cannot be taken as credible or valid. No self-respecting teacher would ever wave away their students inquiry into the lesson and tell to go out and find the information without so much as a lead or instruction. That is the kind of thing preachers do, to absolve themselves of responsibility, giving themselves an out to claim "Oh, that's not what I meant."

[+Link of Hyrule]

Was it here, or somewhere else, that I came across someone looking up the term of church, and saying that in the past, church meant community. When anything that communicated a good experience to someone, I see as never wasted. I am not dissing your thoughts Frank Merton, I just think it is in the way one lives, and everyone should go with how they feel is wasted and what is not.

It might have been here, the original Greek word translated into English as "church" is the word ekklesia and it literally refers to "a gathering of people for common purpose". It has specific religious overtones, so while it is correct then that a comic book convention would be an ekklesia in terms of comic fandom, in its strictest sense unless it has religious overtones another word might be better suited. But the concept is very much the same. In terms of church, a building cannot be a "church", it is just a building. What makes it a church is the people who attend there, who worship God together and encourage one another.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It might have been here, the original Greek word translated into English as "church" is the word ekklesia and it literally refers to "a gathering of people for common purpose". It has specific religious overtones, so while it is correct then that a comic book convention would be an ekklesia in terms of comic fandom, in its strictest sense unless it has religious overtones another word might be better suited. But the concept is very much the same. In terms of church, a building cannot be a "church", it is just a building. What makes it a church is the people who attend there, who worship God together and encourage one another.

Thank you PA for your info. .....................and I thought it was beautiful too. And, I thought so, but your info brings it more into light.

[Frank Merton]

It's hard to respond to an all-or-nothing thread like this, since obviously often religion is a waste of time and sometimes it isn't. It depends on the person and the religion.

I dare say in my experience with Christians most of the time it's an exercise in hypocrisy, being seen by others. Worship should be private, as any careful reading of the Sermon on the Mount indicates. Further, most of what comes across the pulpit is harmful or at best empty platitudes.

[Mr Walker]

It's not my job to believe you. Which could be questionable. Or, I can simply not believe you. Is it willful ignorance to just not believe a particular person? I do the research in so much, I have chosen to willfully be educated in things from a credible source and trusting teachers. I don't think I can trust you, if you willfully have chosen to mispell willful. Not all teachers have all the tools they need, but I have found in my experience with teachers in my job, the good ones do what they need to ........ to get the tools.

Hey, Mr. Walker, like I have said about good teachers learn too, right? Learn from me. Do you a world of good.

I wonder, how did you come by that thought? I'm just wondering, is there anyway that in each imagining world, how it could be good either way?

Your disbelief is a choice. Your decision not to do your own research is another choice. One is allowable/excusable. The other is not in that it is indeed a decision to wilfully remain ignorant. As t myypin I hve explaine h difficulties withmyke board before btyouprobby dot beliee ta t either ( what comes out without any correcting when I type in perfect English ) but I admit I am not a pedantic speller. especially on the net where English/Australian spelling is often quite different from standard American.

[Mr Walker]

name='aquatus1' timestamp='1426460489' post='5474154']

Yes, actually, it is. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit or a soapbox. In a discussion, you are expected to source and support the claims that you put forward

Poor teaching/ learning methodology for the reason you go into below. It is better to establish knowledge through your own research that accept research fed to you. You can't KNOW something until you verify it yourself. Using supplied sources is not reliable.

At a minimum, you need to realize what it makes you look like when someone asks you for a source, and your response is "Eh. It's out there, somewhere. Trust me. Go find it..

Not my problem Knowledge is knowledge seek and yee shall find it'

Wrong priority. First, she needs to determine if you have the validity and credibility to merit her time. Being that you demand automatic authority without providing any reason to accord you that authority, I can easily see why she would choose not to

NO She cannot do that online which is precisely why she should do her own searches. I could supply her with biased sources.. After all she doesn't believe anything i say.

No, Walker. She is choosing common sense. You, on the other hand, are choosing arrogant presumptuousness. The internet is a HUGE place, and trying to find credible and valid information on it takes time and effort, much as it does in the real world. That you refuse to acknowledge that, particularly when your own contribution amounts to nothing more than providing a link that you should have no problem providing (being that you are so familiar with the subject).

And so, on balance if I know something and she does not it is incumbent on HER to do the research not on me to give her data which she may well not accept anyway. If time is valuable to both of us it is best used by the one who has need to learn

I teach a number of pre university subjects to students about 1718yars old. if i did as you suggest for those students, not only would i be failng them as learners but I would be fired and the kids penalised for not doing their own research

And that right there tells us precisely why your word on the matter cannot be taken as credible or valid. No self-respecting teacher would ever wave away their students inquiry into the lesson and tell to go out and find the information without so much as a lead or instruction. That is the kind of thing preachers do, to absolve themselves of responsibility, giving themselves an out to claim "Oh, that's not what I meant."

Which show s how much you know about modern teaching methodology. This is PRECISELY the form of modern teaching methodology especaily since the introduction of the internet My job is to teach how to identify relabiity, credibility, bias etc and how to locate and use reference sources also to teach research skills. It is specifically NOT allowable for me to find or provide source materials for students .

.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Which show s how much you know about modern teaching methodology. This is PRECISELY the form of modern teaching methodology especaily since the introduction of the internet My job is to teach how to identify relabiity, credibility, bias etc and how to locate and use reference sources also to teach research skills. It is specifically NOT allowable for me to find or provide source materials for students .

.

Actually this is 100% incorrect, Mr Walker. Educators are there to provide information, including any relevant Internet sites, blogs, op-ed's, articles, whatever. My Technology Unit of my teaching degree required me to create a webpage for my students to access. The contents of the website was about a topic relevant to my teaching KLA. On that site I was required to put down a question, and then provide four website links that supported the premise and four website links that argued differently. The students then had to read all 8 sites and then submit a report including new websites that they supplemented their core research with to give their own understanding of the topic and what their opinion on it was.

So yes, we supplied some of their research, your statement here resembles no classroom I've ever had to work in.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It's hard to respond to an all-or-nothing thread like this, since obviously often religion is a waste of time and sometimes it isn't. It depends on the person and the religion.

I dare say in my experience with Christians most of the time it's an exercise in hypocrisy, being seen by others. Worship should be private, as any careful reading of the Sermon on the Mount indicates. Further, most of what comes across the pulpit is harmful or at best empty platitudes.

I couldn't agree with you more on this thought. Well I am responding more on what I highlighted in red. I think, and wonder if this is your thought, that what ever you beliefs or non-beliefs, it's more trusting when you are undertaking for yourself. I hope I made sense.

Actually this is 100% incorrect, Mr Walker. Educators are there to provide information, including any relevant Internet sites, blogs, op-ed's, articles, whatever. My Technology Unit of my teaching degree required me to create a webpage for my students to access. The contents of the website was about a topic relevant to my teaching KLA. On that site I was required to put down a question, and then provide four website links that supported the premise and four website links that argued differently. The students then had to read all 8 sites and then submit a report including new websites that they supplemented their core research with to give their own understanding of the topic and what their opinion on it was.

So yes, we supplied some of their research, your statement here resembles no classroom I've ever had to work in.

That sounds like a teacher to me. I should have realized you are teacher, I know I have excitingly learned from you.

[+Link of Hyrule]

That sounds like a teacher to me. I should have realized you are teacher, I know I have excitingly learned from you.

I thought everyone knew I was a teacher (I did have to give it up for two years after dad passed away and I looked after mum as her full time carer). I'm a High School Drama and Music Teacher. At the moment I'm just doing Casual work for the local Christian school. Haven't been getting a heap of work, but a bit here and there is ok. I'm just about headed to bed, I've been called in to work tomorrow from 9-12:30 (hopefully they extend it for a full day, because I think they forgot that they already scheduled me to come in tomorrow afternoon anyway to participate in a compulsory Child Protection Training module after school (it's only 45 minutes, so it will probably be unpaid, so hopefully they'll extend me a full day work instead to compensate me in some manner - otherwise I go to school, and at 1pm I leave and then return 2 hours later, and that's my day basically spent ).

Thanks for the compliment in any case

Edited March 16, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[aquatus1]

name='aquatus1' timestamp='1426460489' post='5474154']

Poor teaching/ learning methodology for the reason you go into below.

It isn't a teaching or learning methodology, Walker. That is the point. What you are doing is not teaching. It is preaching. It is a terrible way to teach.

It is better to establish knowledge through your own research that accept research fed to you.

If you are that kind of learner, sure. However, you need a teacher who is capable of teaching in that manner, which you are most assuredly not. You don't tell people to go do their own research in order to get them to learn. You tell them to go in order to get them to shut up.

You can't KNOW something until you verify it yourself. Using supplied sources is not reliable.

That is only true for approximately one-third of the population.

Not my problem Knowledge is knowledge seek and yee shall find it'

Actually, it is your problem. That you refuse to acknowledge it is yet another problem. Regardless, it isn't too much of a surprise that you dismiss it so easily. As I previous mentioned, your ease of dismissal is quite indicative as to your ability to teach.

NO She cannot do that online

Yes, she can. That's the beauty of rationalism. You can do it practically anywhere. Determining the validity and credibility of something is fairly straightforward.

...which is precisely why she should do her own searches. I could supply her with biased sources.. After all she doesn't believe anything i say.

Not worth her time. You are not valid or credible enough to merit the time and effort. You yourself admit that it is not a subject that merits enough effort on your part to guide anyone in.

And so, on balance if I know something and she does not it is incumbent on HER to do the research not on me to give her data which she may well not accept anyway.

Again, no, that's just your unearned arrogance talking. If you were a teacher, and she a student, then the situation would be different. But you are not. You are merely a voice on the internet with an opinion that you refuse to support. It is incumbent on her to determine whether what your claim merits pursuit. You failed to make the case, in large part because you relied almost entirely on your authority, and yet failed to provide enough credibility and validity to make your authority persuasive.

If time is valuable to both of us it is best used by the one who has need to learn

Agreed. Instead of wasting time trying to find some vague subject from an unsupported claim, she did the smart thing and decided the subject did not merit pursuit, since the chief proponent of it did not even think it worth his time.

I teach a number of pre university subjects to students about 1718yars old.

Hmm.

if i did as you suggest for those students, not only would i be failng them as learners but I would be fired and the kids penalised for not doing their own research

If you treat your students the way you treat people in this forum, you should be fired.

Which show s how much you know about modern teaching methodology.

Ah, the timeless "I know you are, but what am I?" debate technique.

This is PRECISELY the form of modern teaching methodology especaily since the introduction of the internet

No, it is not. Quit your job. You should not be a teacher, especially for young students.

It is specifically NOT allowable for me to find or provide source materials for students.

Does not mean a whole lot.

My job is to teach how to identify relabiity, credibility, bias etc and how to locate and use reference sources also to teach research skills.

I would like to believe you, particularly since you claim to be a teacher, but in your posting history, you simply do not show any natural fluidity in any of those skills. If anything, every time I see you arguing a point, you are inevitably turning people away from learning more about it. Your style is terrible.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I thought everyone knew I was a teacher (I did have to give it up for two years after dad passed away and I looked after mum as her full time carer). I'm a High School Drama and Music Teacher. At the moment I'm just doing Casual work for the local Christian school. Haven't been getting a heap of work, but a bit here and there is ok. I'm just about headed to bed, I've been called in to work tomorrow from 9-12:30 (hopefully they extend it for a full day, because I think they forgot that they already scheduled me to come in tomorrow afternoon anyway to participate in a compulsory Child Protection Training module after school (it's only 45 minutes, so it will probably be unpaid, so hopefully they'll extend me a full day work instead to compensate me in some manner - otherwise I go to school, and at 1pm I leave and then return 2 hours later, and that's my day basically spent ).

Thanks for the compliment in any case

To what I posted in red: Cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!

As I have said here and there, It takes a bit for me to register things. I'm sorry about that. But, in some sense, I think I have always known, ................... subconsciously??? Will that work? *looks sheepish*

You're welcome!