“If a 5 year old can find a way to get to church themselves, you shouldn’t stop them” Yeah because it’s a great idea to let a 5 year old go off to places unsupervised. Especially considering the Catholic Churches child abuse scandals.
As I just wrote below in response to comments by Homer Jay and Luna P, I am the Ned who called in and advocated against parents being able to impose religious practices on their children. I have written a very detailed reaction below; here I will just react to your point; honestly, you have a point, more than most of the naysayers. That comment is the one thing I said during that conversation that I regret; please take into account that I was really put on the spot by the skeptical hosts (as I wrote below, I called in planning to give a systematic theoretical framework arguing for my thesis, but was sidetracked from this by practical questions from especially Russell that I was not quite prepared for). That answer was not well-thought-out and was mainly meant in the context of answering Russell's question, I.E. whether parents should be required to actively support their child in their chosen religion (implied in his question of whether he should have to drive his five-year-old to church). My main point there was that no, I wouldn't require a parent to actively sponsor a child's religious activities they don't personally approve of, merely that a parent should not be allowed to BAN an activity on the sole grounds of disbelief in the religion that the child wishes to practice. But you raise a valid point. In fact, as I outlined in my response below, I am open to various solutions as to how much power parents are to have to make decisions for their children that relate to RATIONAL health and safety concerns. Thus for me, the question of what age a child should be (or not be) considered old enough to go somewhere without adult approval IS an open question. A parent might still have power to block religious practices that viewed objectively and rationally, could pose actual harm (e.g. your example of going near potential child molesters, or in general going among strangers without parental supervision). But I maintain firmly my position that parents should not have the power to coerce a child into doing or not doing something based on the sole fact that the thing the child wants to do or, as the case may be, refuses to do, goes against the parent's purely religious (and thus essentially arbitrary and not based on the rational world) convictions.
Love how theists like to talk about objective morality, but they always end up talking about subjective morality, since their deity is still a subject.
1 thing against Jeff, he says everything has been known to have a natural cause. Every mystery of the universe has been found to have natural cause. Since supernatural can't yet be shown to exist, there are STILL THINGS THAT WE DONT KNOW THE CAUSE. It could be possible that we will NEVER know the cause. That means there will always be an open door for supernatural until we know the cause. IF IF IF there is such a thing as super natural, maybe those unknown causes are unknown because they are super
Martin and Russell completely butchered atheist morality. All the hard work matt and others have done to nail down morality as well being these idiots sent it back to the stone age
Cause and effect. It seems very logical to us that effects will always have a cause. Yet in (wait for it :0) Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) Richard Feynman and others showed that this NOT necessarily the case! In a number of easily demonstrable photon-electron interactions, _which is causing which effect!_ In fact, the math allows particles to appear to be travelling back in time OR moving forward. Strange but true :0)
A set of Moral laws could be decreed by an all powerful Dictator and also labeled "Objective" by those compelled to obey those laws, but still not promote the well being of humanity. Could be the those laws are detrimental to general well being. Even worse when the Dictator is not obliged to obey the code he enforces on his subjects.
~ Four years later (2019): Russell and Martin still interesting to listen to. Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Do you really have to post this same comment on every older episode of TAE?
“If a 5 year old can find a way to get to church themselves, you shouldn’t stop them”
Yeah because it’s a great idea to let a 5 year old go off to places unsupervised. Especially considering the Catholic Churches child abuse scandals.
As I just wrote below in response to comments by Homer Jay and Luna P, I am the Ned who called in and advocated against parents being able to impose religious practices on their children. I have written a very detailed reaction below; here I will just react to your point; honestly, you have a point, more than most of the naysayers. That comment is the one thing I said during that conversation that I regret; please take into account that I was really put on the spot by the skeptical hosts (as I wrote below, I called in planning to give a systematic theoretical framework arguing for my thesis, but was sidetracked from this by practical questions from especially Russell that I was not quite prepared for). That answer was not well-thought-out and was mainly meant in the context of answering Russell's question, I.E. whether parents should be required to actively support their child in their chosen religion (implied in his question of whether he should have to drive his five-year-old to church). My main point there was that no, I wouldn't require a parent to actively sponsor a child's religious activities they don't personally approve of, merely that a parent should not be allowed to BAN an activity on the sole grounds of disbelief in the religion that the child wishes to practice. But you raise a valid point. In fact, as I outlined in my response below, I am open to various solutions as to how much power parents are to have to make decisions for their children that relate to RATIONAL health and safety concerns. Thus for me, the question of what age a child should be (or not be) considered old enough to go somewhere without adult approval IS an open question. A parent might still have power to block religious practices that viewed objectively and rationally, could pose actual harm (e.g. your example of going near potential child molesters, or in general going among strangers without parental supervision). But I maintain firmly my position that parents should not have the power to coerce a child into doing or not doing something based on the sole fact that the thing the child wants to do or, as the case may be, refuses to do, goes against the parent's purely religious (and thus essentially arbitrary and not based on the rational world) convictions.
39:14 It's kinda funny that Russell actually has to basically tell Martin to shut up for a minute to let the caller talk too. ...Classic Martin.
Martin is my least favorite. He gets too condescending
Religion doesn't get to take the moral high ground,the day has long past....
32:37. Yep; that's me. I lived in Hopkins at the time.
They really avoid answering your question
Love how theists like to talk about objective morality, but they always end up talking about subjective morality, since their deity is still a subject.
1 thing against Jeff, he says everything has been known to have a natural cause. Every mystery of the universe has been found to have natural cause. Since supernatural can't yet be shown to exist, there are STILL THINGS THAT WE DONT KNOW THE CAUSE. It could be possible that we will NEVER know the cause.
That means there will always be an open door for supernatural until we know the cause. IF IF IF there is such a thing as super natural, maybe those unknown causes are unknown because they are super
Martin and Russell completely butchered atheist morality. All the hard work matt and others have done to nail down morality as well being these idiots sent it back to the stone age
Could I join the black community, even though I'm not black ?
yes. if you convert first.
I'm compromising. Joining the Gray Community.
Gradually. (day by day)
Sorta (bald by semi-choice; but whiskers gray)
@@brucebaker810
You n me both.
Cause and effect. It seems very logical to us that effects will always have a cause. Yet in (wait for it :0) Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) Richard Feynman and others showed that this NOT necessarily the case! In a number of easily demonstrable photon-electron interactions, _which is causing which effect!_ In fact, the math allows particles to appear to be travelling back in time OR moving forward. Strange but true :0)
What the hell with the volume? My volume is at maximum and I still cannot hear it.
A set of Moral laws could be decreed by an all powerful Dictator and also labeled "Objective" by those compelled to obey those laws, but still not promote the well being of humanity. Could be the those laws are detrimental to general well being. Even worse when the Dictator is not obliged to obey the code he enforces on his subjects.
I love the Jewish culture whether there's a god or not.....
I miss Martin and Russell on the show....