Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Sure. Do you realise that you were dodging a real question, and a fairly difficult one ?SAM said:
Not exactly. There's the presence of a particular kind of belief system, vs its non-presence, to deal with. The situation is not symmetrical.geoff said:
Simple attempts to induce rejection of a belief, accompanied by whatever temperament of attempter, don't necessarily imply indoctrination of anything equivalent in its place.
So that's the thanks I get for explaining how a typical atheist brings up his children. As it says in our bible: " Ye shall bring up your children in the fear and love of nothing"
Is it such a terrible crime to tella Sam what she wants to hear.
As for the mirror, isn't religion all about smoke and mirrors ?
There is no way to control/test that, so it is not scientifically falsifiable.
S.A.M. said:
I thought these could be used for that,
I use this as well: :thumbsup:
SAM,
My perspective is that how people choose to raise their children is their own affair even though I might disagree I’m not about to impose my values on others.
The subject is indoctrination not abuse. Matters of law and community accepted behavior is a different topic that I was not addressing.
My perspective is that how people choose to raise their children is their own affair even though I might disagree I’m not about to impose my values on others.
Maybe its not what I want to hear, maybe its what I want you to see.
Have you forgotten that a mirror gives a revertsed image ?
Q,
In which case you have changed the subject away from indoctrination to abuse and that is a different topic I was not addressing.
That would be the choice the parents had made. The data should be shown to the parents to make the choice to change otherwise it is not my place to interfere in the lives of others.
Abuse is a different issue. If the action is against the law or community accepted behavior then action should result.
If the issue is borderline who has the right to make the judgment. What one community accepts as abuse another might well see that as acceptable and necessary. Unless the activity directly and negatively affects me then I would remain neutral.
This one?
I don't. Because my parents would probably never have heard of them, but as they ensured I was exposed to all the ones they were aware of, I've done everything from attend the local fisherwomans daughters wedding, to the hob nob with "foreigners"
There was never in our home, a separation based on religion, it was "natural" to cook kosher for Jews, vegetarian for Hindus and serve alcohol to those who were inclined to take it.
Its how they eat, was the response. Why? Religion.
Thats something every Indian understands probably from birth.
I received my first "exposure" to religion after the age of 7 when I began to learn it in school. Religion at home was never philosophical and as is common in India was more routine than burdensome. Which meant we had visitors on Eid, Christmas and Diwali because we had an open house for friends.
My parents were believers in opening minds, not closing them, if they were aware of Slavic or Aztec blood rituals they would surely have exposed us to them.
I was of course luckier than many others, but in general, when I travel around India, this is the attitude I come across: If you give respect, you will get it.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Hey, I'm not defending those opinions, I'm just responding to the question about whether the average American fears Muslims. The range of negative emotions toward them by some Americans is so broad that the word "hatred" is not entirely hyberbolic. But to attempt to answer your question, I suspect that most of those are the Americans who don't think too hard about international affairs (or anything else "intellectual") because to do so causes great pain between their ears. In fact in my observation they are > 90% Christians and < 1% atheists.
Whether the belief systems themselves are of any value is not the issue. It is whether the study of these belief systems has value, and I think the obvious answer is yes.
The belief that the initiation of force is ever an acceptable way to resolve a dispute is just as wrong as religion--no wait it is far wronger since it violates the First Rule Of Civilization and religion does not. Yet we assume that exposing children to the horrors of war helps them grow up to reject it and all the people who stand for it.
Neither Sam nor any of the other more articulate members on this thread are demanding that you present religion to your children as an option on equal footing with atheism. They are suggesting that children learn valuable lessons from being exposed to a variety of cultural motifs. It's up to you to make sure they understand the difference between fantasy and reality. Besides, I'm living proof that a child does not have to be taught that religion is stupid in order to reject it. All that is required is that he not be taught that it is smart. Obviously you don't want to leave a six-year-old alone in a room for two hours with your passionate, charismatic, evangelical Christian uncle. You should engage him in a debate and let your child start learning about reasoning and debating.
Religion comes in a wide spectrum. For many people it's only a little bit beyond entertainment. And for some it actually is just entertainment, they just don't think about it. Look at all the American Christians who claim they believe in heaven but not in hell.
Q could you PLEASE dial it back! Many of the rules are suspended on the Religion board or we wouldn't be able to host a religion board, but the rule against personal insults is in full effect. Surely a well-read good writer with an excellent education like yourself can come up with a riposte that is witty without looking like an insult to all of Sam's co-religionists and threatening to start a flame war.
Shame on you.
And as I pointed out, my parents never did that. I did not know they believed there are no gods because they never talked about it.
People have the right to tell their children anything they want, but to tell your children that would still be dishonest. You're implying that atheists are more likely to turn into genocidal mass murderers than theists and we're not. You continue to blame communism on atheism when it is nothing but an unbalanced form of Christianity, different only in degree from the faux-Mormon bigamists in Arizona and the faux-Baptist white supremacists in Mississippi.
Thank you. Sam has trouble understanding that it's possible to develop a moral standard through reason, without having to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will punish you for not having one.
Another disingenuous argument that is beneath you. Why do you conveniently ignore my own experience, just because I happen to be speaking from the perspective of the child rather than the parent? My parents did not pass on any belief (or disbelief) to me. They were completely mute on the subject of religion and in fact I think they would have been uncomfortable to bring it up.
This is an illustration of why we should avoid inflammatory language on SciForums, especially on such a thorny issue as this one. The members you refer to have a good point to make, but they're not going to engage you in a dialog about it by calling you a child abuser. Mister Q, you should also take note of this point the next time you start to type the word "idiotic."
I confess to having included insulting language in my long post about my childhood experience, but I was trying to accurately quote the thoughts of a child 55 or 60 years ago for the edification of the readers. Children are by nature ruder than grownups.
Mine did not and I grew up just fine. They slapped me a couple of times when I was being a complete asshole, but I got the message that they were not doing that to teach me to be kind for fear of being punished, they wanted rather to teach me to be kind because to be unkind makes other people feel bad--so bad that they might do something irrational that they'll regret. I did not know fear until I was about ten and they started taking me to the movies that showed the horrors of WWII so soon after its end. I think they felt it was okay to use fear of what people can do to each other to teach me not to grow up like their generation, believing that violence is an acceptable way to resolve disputes.
We need one in speech. I never ever get it. Something like those double-handed two-finger wiggles we use to indicate quotation marks.
I agree with you, I am of the opinion that if indoctrination is overtly abusive (and it can be) then intervention may be necessary.
What would you consider abusive indoctrination?
This would probably cover it:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501020729-322673,00.html
wow.....
Kali is a blood thirsty goddess. All her followers offer blood sacrifice. She is the manifestation of righteous justice that can only be satisfied by blood.
Though some follwoers have mellowed
What exactly does this have to do with an atheist indoctrination?
Last edited:
Well, maybe SAM thinks that cutting and bleeding a girl to death in a blood sacrifice is equal of not teaching your children about religion?
The victims are "willing". Its like sati, where the wives were willing (with drugs to make the willingness easier)
And its not atheist indoctrination. I would say there is plenty of theist indoctrination to go around