this isn't what science says.
science is neutral on the concept of god.
science has not acknowledged any proof for or against god.
As an Atheist what do you teach kids?
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
science is neutral on the concept of god.
science has not acknowledged any proof for or against god.
Actually, sod it. I'll admit it anyway.
I would explain what I personally believe to the child. I would make sure the kid knows that is a personally belief and that people believe many different things. He could then (maybe by asking a number of people) come to his own conclusions and ideas about what's going on.
Everyone should do this, in my opinion. Whether religious or atheist.
Last edited:
Seems reasonable. Don't you think EFOC?
superstring01
Moderator
Where did I mention "science"? I said "facts" (like the empirical kind). An absence of any evidence doesn't give one the right to fill in the gaps with whatever one wants. One cannot extrapolate an absence of proof for--say--Zeus to allow a teaching that Zeus exists.
As I said, it's possible that there is a god or a heaven, and teaching of possibilities is right as long as they are put in perspective. Teaching that a possibility is explicitly factual, especially without supporting evidence, is categorically wrong.
God is a human construct and until god[ess] shows him/herself to be real, we can safely relegate god, Zeus, Allah, Yhwh, AhuraMazda to the realm of human imagination.
~String
superstring01
Moderator
lol why was he banned?
Too bad. He isn't the worst of the "enlightened ones".
Now who are we going to argue with?
I can be his substitute.
So how are you gonna prove the existence of the non existence of GOD?
Peace
So how are you gonna prove the existence of the non existence of GOD?
Peace
I've actually had a theist make that very argument, and that shouting out the name in times of stress proves I'm in denial.
I pointed out that I often shout 'fuck!' when I hit my hand with a hammer, but I don't believe 'fuck!' is a deity.
With no god we fill in that void being god ourselves. Athiests must believe since we have no soul and no god, that we can duplicate consciousness meaningfully, leaving no place for god. Is this why? or do you deface the idea on the note of contradictions made by organized religion. I understand the concerete association but your allowing this to irrationally conduce you to your personal belief becoming a religion in itself.
I take it when you say athiest, it is the belief that there is no god. I dont think anyone truly eliminates "god" outside chasing the bandwagon and I suspect that the belief of god somehow leaves imprints that are left in our moral compass. Organized religion is a tyrant that has been the cause of more pain and war than we can ever imagine. Organized religion mostly are athiests under the guise of religion, exploiting it. What can an athiest offer children? absolutely nothing. It is only if the athiest in question, is a sensible human being is when something can be "taught".
But than we enter an ethical argument.
You probably consider it a blessing if your kids were raised as athiests and than believed in eugenics, racism, intolerance, and has the same lack of apathy as a nazi scientest when it comes to life. (Surely could be reasoned and backed scientifically if one tried hard enough to prove this to be the case)
Others would want there children to be more humane.
Don't confuse organized religion with god or your no different than the "woo wos" you seek and wish to critically make fun of.
I take it when you say athiest, it is the belief that there is no god. I dont think anyone truly eliminates "god" outside chasing the bandwagon and I suspect that the belief of god somehow leaves imprints that are left in our moral compass. Organized religion is a tyrant that has been the cause of more pain and war than we can ever imagine. Organized religion mostly are athiests under the guise of religion, exploiting it. What can an athiest offer children? absolutely nothing. It is only if the athiest in question, is a sensible human being is when something can be "taught".
But than we enter an ethical argument.
You probably consider it a blessing if your kids were raised as athiests and than believed in eugenics, racism, intolerance, and has the same lack of apathy as a nazi scientest when it comes to life. (Surely could be reasoned and backed scientifically if one tried hard enough to prove this to be the case)
Others would want there children to be more humane.
Don't confuse organized religion with god or your no different than the "woo wos" you seek and wish to critically make fun of.
FFS Joey, how many times, NO!
I know short term memory damage is a symptom of your habit, but surely, if we keep telling you that is NOT the definition of atheist, it will sink in eventually?
What "void"?
What "irrationality"? What "religion"?
WTF are you talking about? Are you contending that atheists automatically subscribe to any (or all) of those things on that list?
We'd certainly like them to be more intelligent.
Phlo: Wouldent agnostic be more appropriate than as a label?
Dwy:
1. Surely you can read in context?
2. Try reading again, Dwy. I know you can do better than that.
3. I didn't say that Dwy. Is that what you believe? What difference would it make as an athiest?
Dwy:
1. Surely you can read in context?
2. Try reading again, Dwy. I know you can do better than that.
3. I didn't say that Dwy. Is that what you believe? What difference would it make as an athiest?