Shard

The answer is: no reason no purpose. Not so interesting, get over it.

Jericho79

Yes, I truly care about the negative impact religion has in society. So should you. If religion simply vanished tomorrow- gone- and all historical context removed, just think of how much happier the world would be right now.

This became very real for me recently when my youngest child came home from school crying, because her best friend had told her she was going to hell for not believing in God. And that the reason she was left handed was because the devil was on her left shoulder.
Its real when our politicians allow their policies to be moulded by religious belief. Slavery was validated because the bible allowed it (encouraged it, actually). Woman dont have equal rights (or equal treatment) in almost all corners of the planet because religion permits it. Same with homosexuals. AIDS is a massive problem in Africa because of religion.
Evolution has provided us with an amazing brain, and we spoil it by believing in self-destructive belief systems.

In answer to your other question- what is our real purpose- the answer is easy. "We" have no purpose. We were not put on this Earth for a reason. We happened, and here we are. Your (as in you) purpose on this Earth is whatever you want it to be, but if you're thinking there is some yet to be revealed master plan, it's a wish I dont understand.

Oakvillian

My secondary education took place at an institution that had been originally founded as a seat of monastic scholarship and teaching, and re-founded during the reign of Edward VI (i.e. after Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries) as a place of learning. While it was not, constitutionally, a Church of England establishment, it was built around the old monastic buildings, and school life was still very much centred on the Church, with every pupil expected to attend religious services at least twice a week (non-C of E kids were expected to attend the local Catholic or some variety of non-conformist church, or - shock, horror - the Synagogue. There were a handful of nominally Muslim guys, and one Parsi, but I think they got away with it as there were no mosques or Zoroastrian temples in that corner of south-west England).

The school actually had a fairly enlightened viewpoint, for a place so strongly steeped in Anglicanism. We were encouraged, but by no means forced, to take instruction towards Confirmation. There was an active Christian Union, but there was an equally active Secular Society. Comparative Religion was taught as part of the core curriculum, where we learned the history and key belief structures of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism (thanks, Reza), as well as Christianity.

From my experience of the Anglican liturgy, I developed a love of the language of the King James bible and the 1660 prayerbook. The cadences and structures are so much prettier to listen to than the flat, "simple" language of modern translations, never mind the actual content. I still enjoy a rousing good hymn (from the '50s edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern, none of this modern happy-clappy stuff for me), and an understanding of why people take comfort in the Church. I don't believe in God, but that doesn't stop me from belting out Cwm Rhondda or Blaenwern or any of those other rousing Welsh tunes - either in church or on the terraces of Twickenham!

In short, I don't believe I was brainwashed at all. I was presented with options, instructed more fully in one of them, and allowed to take my choice of any or none.

Oakvillian

That is fantastically naive.
And that is a massive oversimplification. Slavery was a fact of life in many early societies that had nothing to do with Old Testament values, or indeed any religious texts whatsoever. Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome all embraced the idea of slavery, of the subjugation of women, and so forth, with not a Bible in sight. Granted, the Greeks had a somewhat more enlightened attitude towards homosexuality, but rarely between equals (in age or social status) and in fact what we would today consider to be horrific sexual abuse of prepubescent boys was a normal everyday occurrence in some societies.

Shard

The fact that slavery predates the Bible does not invalidate the idea that the Bible, and religion generally, has been used to justify or implement slavery (or worse horrors) for most of the past two millennia.

Almost Canadian

I attend catholic schools until the age of 12. We had an assembly once a week where prayers were said and we had RE as I suspect every school in England at the time did.

I had nuns as teachers and the local father would come round every now and then to provide us with the benefit of his wisdom.

I don't recall any form of indoctrination as of such and we were taught to think critically about everything, including religion. As I have said before, I stopped attending church as soon as I was confirmed.

Gozit

+1 to all this.

So you were "expected" (in school language this means forced) to go to church twice a week, but they had an "enlightened viewpoint?" Where would they "expect" you to go if you were atheist?

I do like the fact that you were taught "religious history" or comparative religion.

My experience: I've gone to a religious school my whole life. Its all catholic indoctrination all the time. We didn't and still don't learn about other religions. Except 11th year, where we have a "World Religion" course, but the following year its back to catholic catholic catholic... Anything you try and say that is against the church is instantly "wrong". The teachers themselves actually aren't allowed to discuss with us their opinions on the religion. Board policy.


Thankfully I've seen the light, and now ignore all the indoctrination, but I don't feel I've got anything out of it. Actually, being subjected to it every single day has pushed me faster to the conclusion that its all a load of crap.

Oakvillian

Perhaps, but by the same token it doesn't mean that removing religion from the world would mean that slavery, subjugation of women, persecution of the "different" would happen any the less.

Jericho's assertion seems to be that removing religion from society would somehow magically make the world a better place. Of course, it's not possible to model that in the real world: even supposedly non-religious societies are not really without religion. But I read Lord of the Flies as a kid, I know what happens when a group of naive humans forms a society without religion . And less facetiously, there are examples (communist Soviet politics, to pick a prime one) where forcibly removing religious beliefs from the equation absolutely does not improve the lot of the common man. Human nature is messier than we give it credit for...

Almost Canadian

How did the school force you to attend church? That was your parents wasn't it?

As one doesn't take one's first communion until sometime after the age one has to first attend school, how can that be part of the acceptance criteria?

Shard

Interesting. How were you taught to think critically about Catholicism (for example)? Were you allowed to question it or reject it?

Almost Canadian

Do you believe that you benefitted from, or were harmed by, such "religious" teaching?

Gozit

Now that's ironic. Same here... I only got confirmed because my grandmother would have an absolute fit if I didn't. Now I only attend church when forced - that is once a month during school. Maybe the occasional time if my grandmother drags us out and I can't come up with an excuse not to go.

Oakvillian

No, actually - if one could present a sound argument to one's housemaster to excuse attendance, then church was not compulsory. Some people used to go for a walk instead, or find a space for quiet contemplation. They weren't allowed just to bunk off and do nothing, though.

Gozit

I'd be interested to hear this...

Like I said, in a 21st century catholic HIGH school, we aren't allowed to question or reject it.

If I reject it on assignments/paper, which I often do when the questions are such like "Did mary ever have sex?" and I answer "If she actually existed, and had a child, then yes, because otherwise one is not able to have a child".

Or "Which angel visited mary and told her she would have a child named jesus". And I answer "None. Angels don't exist".

In other words, its their "correct" answers that they actually accept as correct, not the one's that I know are correct. Even though religion is all about belief, we aren't allowed to display a lack of belief, or our answers are marked wrong.

Gozit

Would being an atheist be a sound argument, then?