Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

Actually, I think the term "stupid people' is essentially meaningless.
Thoughts can be stupid.
Actions can be stupid.
But people? I don't think the adjective is applicable.
 
Going right off topic now, but...
No, I don't think so.

Actually, I think the term "stupid people' is essentially meaningless.
Thoughts can be stupid.
Actions can be stupid.
But people? I don't think the adjective is applicable.

Then clearly we are at an impasse about what is to be done with all the parents not teaching their children to think intelligently.
 
That again begs the question: what education?

Should we close down the faith schools? Ban religious teaching at home or in the community?
 
Education on critical thinking skills. How to think, not what to think.
Both for children and for adults.

I don't know how it could or should be implemented. I don't have all the answers. I certainly don't advocate closing down schools, or imposing bans on religious institutions.

Thoughts...
I think that school curriculums should be free of religious doctrine, and include a strong focus on critical thinking skills.
I think that the idea of parental ownership of children and their beliefs is deeply ingrained in society, that it is not a good thing, but that any radical "cure" would be far worse than the problem. An effective remedy would take generations.
 
That again begs the question: what education?

Should we close down the faith schools? Ban religious teaching at home or in the community?

There's nothing wrong with teaching the various religions if people wish to learn about myths and superstitions. Why would they bother?
 
Education on critical thinking skills. How to think, not what to think.
Both for children and for adults.

I don't know how it could or should be implemented. I don't have all the answers. I certainly don't advocate closing down schools, or imposing bans on religious institutions.

Thoughts...
I think that school curriculums should be free of religious doctrine, and include a strong focus on critical thinking skills.
I think that the idea of parental ownership of children and their beliefs is deeply ingrained in society, that it is not a good thing, but that any radical "cure" would be far worse than the problem. An effective remedy would take generations.

Why is it that athiests always somehow end up delegitimising the stabilising influences of family and community?

What makes them think a society can function in the long term if the family unit is considered incidental?
 
you're really jumping around tonight, Sam.

Why is it that athiests always somehow end up delegitimising the stabilising influences of family and community?
Why do you imply that I have done so?

What makes them think a society can function in the long term if the family unit is considered incidental?
What makes you think it can't?

I don't necessarily think that it can. Or if it could, that it would be desirable. I do think that if a society not strongly focused on the *traditional* family unit were possible, then long-term social preparation would be necessary.

Like I said, any radical change at this level would be very bad.
 
Why do theists think they are the only ones who can possibly have social values?
 
you're really jumping around tonight, Sam.

Not too articulate, I'm afraid. :p
Why do you imply that I have done so?

You clearly think of current system of parental rights as ownership.
It sounds extremely odd to me.
What makes you think it can't?

Because of the effect that breakdown of the family structure is having on kids today. They'll soon be having shorter lifespans because less parental intervention has essentially led to less healthy kids, in both physical and psychological sense.

I don't necessarily think that it can. I do think that if a society not strongly focused on the *traditional* family unit were possible, then long-term social preparation would be necessary.
Farm them out, you mean? A kibbutz?
Like I said, any radical change at this level would be very bad.

Clearly.
 
You clearly think of current system of parental rights as ownership.
It sounds extremely odd to me.
The idea of child ownership is a small and unnecessary part of the family construct. It's an ancient and odious notion.
It's changing, slowly.
It's not all that long ago in western society that a parent could kill a recalcitrant child without fear of the law.


Because of the effect that breakdown of the family structure is having on kids today. They'll soon be having shorter lifespans because less parental intervention has essentially led to less healthy kids, in both physical and psychological sense.
That's because there's no effective replacement in place. It doesn't mean it can't be done in principle.

Farm them out, you mean? A kibbutz?
That might be a viable alternative social model.
 
Why do theists think they are the only ones who can possibly have social values?

Because athiests have yet to prove that their actions can benefit society in the long term.

As soon as they get some power, their entire focus appears to be wiping out religion without contributing anything to society, though some of them are catching on.


Founded by Felix Adler, the son of a rabbi, to drive social-justice initiatives and promote good without God, Ethical Culture walks like a church and talks like a church—congregants sit in pews, rise to sing hymns, and pass around a collection plate. But at one of their Sunday-morning meetings in January, their Senior Leader, in a very unchurchlike fashion, cited agnosticism as the only intellectually defensible religious position. More to the point, Epstein is eyeing the group’s building as a prototype for the church of New Humanism. Modeled on a Greco-Roman coliseum, Ethical Culture has semi-circular pews to promote conversation and a low stage designed to minimize the distance between leader and congregation. “I want to build big, beautiful buildings like Ethical Culture in every big city in America,” says Epstein. Unfortunately, his organization only brings in $200,000 a year. And while that’s up from $28,000 four years ago, it’s not enough to build a New Humanist church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, let alone Central Park West.
http://nymag.com/news/features/46214/index2.html
 
Because athiests have yet to prove that their actions can benefit society in the long term.
Right back at you!

Even if I did accept your contentious premise, how does it relate to the question?
 
The idea of child ownership is a small and unnecessary part of the family construct. It's an ancient and odious notion.
It's changing, slowly.
It's not all that long ago in western society that a parent could kill a recalcitrant child without fear of the law.
Yes, to a point where people are becoming psychologically adrift.

That's because there's no effective replacement in place. It doesn't mean it can't be done in principle.

So just keep breaking up the family unit and see where it goes?

That might be a viable alternative social model.
There is some data on this from studies in Germany during WWII.

Right back at you!

You;re here, aren't you?
Even if I did accept your contentious premise, how does it relate to the question?

See repost above
 
Last edited:
SAM said:
Because athiests have yet to prove that their actions can benefit society in the long term.
Whereas some theism taking credit for the family, human love, decency and tolerance and all the good in the world is proof of great benefit from their Deity du jour ?

I would think the example of North Korea would be a wakeup call - the adoption of a Deity by the local tyranny seems to have been almost deliberate. Clearly there's a benefit in Deity for some folks.
 
Back
Top