What a bunch of self-serving psychological babble.
Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You're making unwarranted assumptions.
Other possibilities to consider:
1. Different causes spring from a collection of initial causes, rather than a single "supreme cause".
2. There is no initial cause.
3. Some things are uncaused.
4. Even if there is a "supreme first cause", it doesn't have to be a being who answers prayers, takes an active and ongoing interest in the activities of human beings, has a favorite religious group, etc. etc. (and those are the characteristics of God in every scripture).
Hi Sam,
I don't think these questions in your post correspond to the question in the thread title.
"Indoctrination" implies two things:
1 - the systematic presentation of specified dogma as fact
2 - the obstruction of access to counter arguments.
So indoctrinating a child into atheism would mean both explicitly instructing the child that there is no god, and preventing the child from reading or otherwise accessing religious materials.
Not going out of your way to present religious material to a child doesn't qualify.
Anyway.
I am sure that there are parents who do indoctrinate their children into atheism to some degree. There would be more who encourage atheism and discourage theism by example (eg scoffing at religious opinions in the media). This might be considered borderline indoctrination at a stretch.
But there would be few, if any, who would condone such actions as: weekly meetings with like-minded people to recite dogmatic creeds and read dogmatic texts; sponsoring schools that explicitly include dogmatic teachings as part of the curriculum; confiscating and destroying texts that run counter to accepted dogma; regularly reading to infants from dogmatic storybooks. These are examples of indoctrination that are decried by Dawkins.
Now, personally.
My children (oldest is approaching 7) aren't yet old enough to be considered theist or not. I haven't gone out of my way to encourage or deny access to religious materials... it just doesn't seem terribly important. Just like I haven't gone out of my way to encourage or deny access to materials about fairies (although I think there are maybe two fairy-themed TV shows that make an occasional appearance.) As it happens, the school my oldest attends includes an optional religious education component. Most kids in his class go, so he goes as well. I'm pretty bemused that their "broad, non-denominational" religious education is purely Christian, but I don't really care much about it. Stories of Jesus are just as much part of the local culture as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
The way I see it, my job as a parent is to encourage my children to learn how to think intelligently. How to think. Not what to think. For example, I might never tell my kids "Santa isn't real"... but I will give them the opportunity to learn where their Christmas presents come from. They can draw their own conclusions.
I am making no assumptions, neither am I basing my opinion on any belief.
If God is described as the supreme original cause, regardless of whether you believe it or not, please explain how there can more than the one?
Jan.
SnakeLord,
The original cause. Do you not underststand the answer? Too difficult maybe?
Then we can understand each other.
So in what way does that mean it is talking to other original causes?
Especially as it say something in that scripture like; in the begining was the word, and the word was God.
No it doesn't, the plural to elohim is eloa.
Apart from that, elohim is used in various ways.
This is where it is blatently obvious you don't really understand.
ta ta.
Jan.
The original cause. Do you not underststand the answer? Too difficult maybe?
Then we can understand each other.
So in what way does that mean it is talking to other original causes?
Especially as it say something in that scripture like; in the begining was the word, and the word was God.
No it doesn't, the plural to elohim is eloa.
Apart from that, elohim is used in various ways.
This is where it is blatently obvious you don't really understand.
ta ta.
Jan.
Oh Shit, it was a typo.. Supposed to read " in the beginning the word was dog"
Now, I just have to edit the whole fucking tome with the word dog used in every instance where god was mis-used.
Shit, do you think the message will be altered?
No no, I got that. There is one supreme cause, one master of the universe. I'm with you. So... which one is it? Is yhwh the one true supreme being? What about Tiamat? Or perhaps Abellio?
You might at this stage argue that these are all the same entity just with different names, but - as has been argued - that simply cannot be the case given the vastly contradictory differences. So once again, and it's a simple question Jan: which of the gods is the master god?
And this is of serious importance surely. What if I worship the wrong supreme being? As such let me know which is the right one.
You only understand scripture? :bugeye:
As opposed to what, talking to himself in plurals?
Uhh no, it's the other way round.
Elohim acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods.
It is always a plural word meaning 'gods', not god.
Now now, that's a bit weak.
1) BG 2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you.
As there was never a time when I did not exist, I can never have been created. That's that. Instead of trying pathetic little theist excuses, try and argue against it as a grown up.
2) BG 2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time.
I have always existed. 'Me', (my soul), was never born, will never die, was never created. As there was never a time when I did not exist, I can never have been created.
My pleasure.
Not yet, although the eldest is obviously thinking about the religious education at a surface level. Yesterday he made a structure out of some snap-together stuff and said "guess what this is"... not a sword... not a tree... no, "It's the cross that Jesus died on!" he says. "A crucifix!" says I. "Good job."
Hmm...very enlightened, that is.
There seems to be a lot of debate about this. The average intensity of "indoctrination" probably varies between theists and non-theists (my case being a probable outlier) but I don't think we can say that it can't happen that some athiests indoctrinate their children, although whether or not that happens often is another issue. Aren't there any stats on this somewhere? PsyLit or whatever it is those psychological types use?
...Christ I just realized I've got a bleeding cross appointment in Psych and I know bugger all about it. God help me.
:huh:
SnakeLord,
Look at it this way the supreme original cause is the origin of all effects, therefore there can only be one. Is that simple enough for you so far?
If the personality that is worshiped is characterised by this trait, then it must be the same personality.
I don't think there is anymore to say on this subject.
Such as.
LOL!!
If it is, as you say, a supreme being, then you couldn't worship the wrong one, because it is the supreme being. :bugeye:
I'm not interested in religions that are not based on scipture.
An answer to the question will suffice. If you are able.
http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_is_elohim.htm
"...There is a general use of Elohim in reference to God Himself (Exodus 18:11, Psalm 82:6). Both Angels and men are called "Elohim" in special circumstances (Exodus 4:16, Exodus 7:1, Judges 13:22, Psalm 8:5)."
I would agree with you, if my analysis wasn't evidently true.
Jan.
Look at it this way the supreme original cause is the origin of all effects, therefore there can only be one. Is that simple enough for you so far?
If the personality that is worshiped is characterised by this trait, then it must be the same personality.
I don't think there is anymore to say on this subject.
Such as.
LOL!!
If it is, as you say, a supreme being, then you couldn't worship the wrong one, because it is the supreme being. :bugeye:
I'm not interested in religions that are not based on scipture.
An answer to the question will suffice. If you are able.
http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_is_elohim.htm
"...There is a general use of Elohim in reference to God Himself (Exodus 18:11, Psalm 82:6). Both Angels and men are called "Elohim" in special circumstances (Exodus 4:16, Exodus 7:1, Judges 13:22, Psalm 8:5)."
I would agree with you, if my analysis wasn't evidently true.
Jan.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Indoctrination, insmocktrination.
One good mocking session from a rationalist Dad could have as much impact as a month of boring Sundays without even trying.
Sure, such would be logical.
However, SnakeLord actually has a good point. Those of us who grew up under the pressure of fire and brimstone Christianity tend to apriori have a deep distrust in the mere notion of a supreme being, to say nothing of the deep-seated distrust in ourselves.
When I think of even just the word "God", my immediate reaction is to shudder (and the fire and brimstone Christians would claim that this is just my willful rebellion against God and proof that Christianity is right). I shudder at the thought of "God", and this probably has more to do with fire and brimstone Christianity being beaten into me before I could even spell my name, than it has to do with God.
I think though that those who argue for theism should take this into consideration. Instead, much of the religious discussion is for many of us just a reliving of the painful past, and of course we endure it, we're used to endure it.
and becomes bitter.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I think the definition tends to have quite a bit of smugness in it. I have addressed this elsewhere:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1763785&highlight=indoctrination#post1763785
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1762285&highlight=indoctrination#post1762285