Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[Jan Ardena]

You don't take the label as a compliment ? Why not ?

Because apart from it being an offensive terminology (fundie), I think you meant it to be offensive.

fund·ie [ fúndee ] (plural fund·ies) or fund·y [ fúndee ] (plural fund·ies)

Definition:

fundamentalist: an offensive term for a member of a fundamentalist political or religious group ( informal ) ( offensive )

Jan.

 

[Myles]

SnakeLord,



LOL!!
These are descriptions of "gods".
I posted definitions of "gods", and "God", earlier for Superluminal. Apparently the difference must have slipped his mind also.
Read it, then get back to me.



I don't feel like going down this road with you, as there is no point.



You mean, name changes, various aspects (due to time place and circumstance)? But if he is classed as the supreme, original cause, then they are relating to the same personality because as you have agreed, only one being can be the supreme cause.
Hasn't it hit home yet?



In which scripture are these personalities capitalised?



Scraping the barrel are we?



If his description is that he is the supreme cause, then it doesn't really matter who believes it or not, does it?
In fact the only position anyone can take is one of belief, or disbelief, end of.



SnakeLord....give it up.
You cannot go any further.

Jan.

So you have scriptoral (sic) references. Is anyone denying it ? What is in question is the truth of what your scriptures say and why anyone should believe them. What sort of evidence can you offer that they are the word of god by whichever name he is known ?

So I suggest you provide some extra-biblical, extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim. Then we may have something to talk about.

 

[James R]

Jan:

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?

You appear to be attempting to redefine your way out of an argument. If by "God" you mean nothing more than "Supreme Original Cause", then "Supreme Original Cause" is just an equivalent term for "God". Saying that God is the Supreme Original Cause then becomes an empty process of renaming your god.

The questions you are avoiding include: (a) whether a Supreme Original Cause exists as a single entity (or indeed as an entity at all), (b) whether Zeus, or Yahweh, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Supreme Original Cause (or do you assert all these gods are the same?), (c) whether there was a single Supreme Original Cause at all, as a matter of necessity or fact.

Look at it this way the supreme original cause is the origin of all effects, therefore there can only be one.

You assume that all effects hare the one original cause. What evidence do you have of that?

If the personality that is worshiped is characterised by this trait, then it must be the same personality.

That's like saying that all gods described as having wings are the same personality.

I'm not interested in religions that are not based on scipture.

Interesting. Why is scripture important to you? If somebody wrote it down, it must be true? Do you believe all scripture, or only certain scripture?

Is Yahweh described as the original cause?

Yes, and so is Zeus. But Yahweh and Zeus otherwise are described as quite different entities. Do you believe they are the same?

 

[iceaura]

Because apart from it being an offensive terminology (fundie), I think you meant it to be offensive.

Ah well, I have become a bit callous toward the sensibilities of the Pious over the years.

But you might have some sympathy for my position - it's very difficult to make simple declarative sentences expressing ordinary, common sense opinions (or even plain facts, in some cases) about religious matters without offending the Pious. And rhetorically tiptoeing around in ever widening and less reasonable circles wears on a body, after a while.

For example, we have here an entire thread here apparently predicated on the assumption that deliberately raising one's children without a belief in a Deity, especially if it involves a specific Deity explicitly not believed in, is indoctrinating them into a "belief system". Indoctrination without a doctrine. Belief systems without beliefs. How to discuss ?

 

[redwards]

Ah well, I have become a bit callous toward the sensibilities of the Pious over the years.

But you might have some sympathy for my position - it's very difficult to make simple declarative sentences expressing ordinary, common sense opinions (or even plain facts, in some cases) about religious matters without offending the Pious. And rhetorically tiptoeing around in ever widening and less reasonable circles wears on a body, after a while.

For example, we have here an entire thread here apparently predicated on the assumption that deliberately raising one's children without a belief in a Deity, especially if it involves a specific Deity explicitly not believed in, is indoctrinating them into a "belief system". Indoctrination without a doctrine. Belief systems without beliefs. How to discuss ?

:roflmao:

 

[greenberg]

Ah well, I have become a bit callous toward the sensibilities of the Pious over the years.

But you might have some sympathy for my position - it's very difficult to make simple declarative sentences expressing ordinary, common sense opinions (or even plain facts, in some cases) about religious matters without offending the Pious. And rhetorically tiptoeing around in ever widening and less reasonable circles wears on a body, after a while.

Calling him a "fundie" was an offence.
Jan Ardena considering it offensive wasn't an example of the common proclivity of many theists (but dominantly Christians) to take offense at pretty much anything.

For example, we have here an entire thread here apparently predicated on the assumption that deliberately raising one's children without a belief in a Deity, especially if it involves a specific Deity explicitly not believed in, is indoctrinating them into a "belief system". Indoctrination without a doctrine. Belief systems without beliefs. How to discuss ?

Then you are missing the point entirely.
Anything we teach anyone is some form of indoctrination or other.

 

[greenberg]

Interesting. Why is scripture important to you? If somebody wrote it down, it must be true? Do you believe all scripture, or only certain scripture?

Would you, for example, ignore what the physics books say, ignore everything you've ever learned at physics classes and on your own?

Would you take some physics terms -like mass, velocity, electron, force etc.- that have come into popular parliance, and then insist on trying to prove their existence and laws regarding them without any reference to physics books, ie. without any reference to established physics theories?

It would be a pointless endeavor, would it not?

 

[greenberg]

You assume that all effects hare the one original cause. What evidence do you have of that?

To remind you:

1. The path of evidentiary support is necessarily relativistic and does not provide absolute truths. No matter what evidence would be provided, it could still be questioned on the grounds that the path of evidentiary support is necessarily relativistic and does not provide absolute truths.

2. The system of science and scientific inquiry is a self-referential system. It makes sense and is useful only in reference to itself. Outside of that, it is undefined. Using science to prove or disprove "God" is nonsensical because "God" cannot be defined in common scientific terms in the first place.



I am not a theist, mind you. But I will not betray myself with cheap pseudo-arguments against theism.

 

[James R]

greenberg:

Would you, for example, ignore what the physics books say, ignore everything you've ever learned at physics classes and on your own?

Would you take some physics terms -like mass, velocity, electron, force etc.- that have come into popular parliance, and then insist on trying to prove their existence and laws regarding them without any reference to physics books, ie. without any reference to established physics theories?

The difference is that, if you're given a definition of velocity or force or electron, you can go out and check for yourself how closely that term matches things out there in the real world.

But when you read stories about sky fairies, where can you go to check if they are true or not? Only to another "believer" in sky fairies. Right?

To remind you:

1. The path of evidentiary support is necessarily relativistic and does not provide absolute truths. No matter what evidence would be provided, it could still be questioned on the grounds that the path of evidentiary support is necessarily relativistic and does not provide absolute truths.

That's kind of implied by the word "support" in "evidentiary support", isn't it?

2. The system of science and scientific inquiry is a self-referential system. It makes sense and is useful only in reference to itself. Outside of that, it is undefined.

Completely false.

Science makes constant reference to the world. Science is about something - nature, the universe. It is not an invented, self-referential system with no ties to anything outside itself, as you claim.

Using science to prove or disprove "God" is nonsensical because "God" cannot be defined in common scientific terms in the first place.

May I ask: How do you, personally, define God?

I am not a theist, mind you. But I will not betray myself with cheap pseudo-arguments against theism.

Good for you. Bravo!

 

[ElectricFetus]

Look guys just give up, you can't break theist down, eventually you will reach a point were the theist will claim all evidence against god was placed their by god (or the devil) to test the theist's faith, oh and faith is something that can't be reasoned, they know there is a god and nothing is going to change their mind.

 

[greenberg]

The difference is that, if you're given a definition of velocity or force or electron, you can go out and check for yourself how closely that term matches things out there in the real world.

Not so - because in order to understand that definition, you still need some specific physics knowledge.
A scientific definition cannot be understood per se, without reference to some physics theory.
Nothing can be understood per se, without reference to some context; the thing is that we tend to take large portions of our cognition and experience for granted.

But when you read stories about sky fairies, where can you go to check if they are true or not? Only to another "believer" in sky fairies. Right?

I all depends on what you stake on proving something to be "true" or "false".

1. The path of evidentiary support is necessarily relativistic and does not provide absolute truths. No matter what evidence would be provided, it could still be questioned on the grounds that the path of evidentiary support is necessarily relativistic and does not provide absolute truths.

That's kind of implied by the word "support" in "evidentiary support", isn't it?

My point is that it is nonsensical to demand evidentiary support for "God". Whatever evidentiary support anyone might provide for "God", it wouldn't be satisfactory already because it is evidentiary support, and as such, subject to constant revision.
Knowledge of God would -given the definition of God as being The Creator, The First Cause, The Alpha and Omega, The Absolute- have to be a matter of absolutes: and absolutes are not something that could be arrived at via the path of evidentiary support.

2. The system of science and scientific inquiry is a self-referential system. It makes sense and is useful only in reference to itself. Outside of that, it is undefined.

Completely false.

Science makes constant reference to the world. Science is about something - nature, the universe. It is not an invented, self-referential system with no ties to anything outside itself, as you claim.

Every system is self-referential. This is the power, and the trouble with systems.

What you are saying above presumes there is such a thing as objective reality. Philosophy has aptly been pointing out for millenia how problematic the notion of objective reality is.

Using science to prove or disprove "God" is nonsensical because "God" cannot be defined in common scientific terms in the first place.

May I ask: How do you, personally, define God?

The Creator, The First Cause, The Alpha and Omega, The Absolute, The Highest of the High, The Purest of the Pure.

 

[greenberg]

Look guys just give up, you can't break theist down, eventually you will reach a point were the theist will claim all evidence against god was placed their by god (or the devil) to test the theist's faith, oh and faith is something that can't be reasoned, they know there is a god and nothing is going to change their mind.

It's not about "breaking the theist down".
It's about arriving at a position of one's own without compromising one's integrity in the way one has refuted other positions.

 

[redwards]

Then you are missing the point entirely.
Anything we teach anyone is some form of indoctrination or other.

But atheism is not a teaching. It's the absence of a teaching. :shrug:

Am I indoctrinating my children when I tell them that witches aren't real?

 

[James R]

greenberg:

The difference is that, if you're given a definition of velocity or force or electron, you can go out and check for yourself how closely that term matches things out there in the real world.

Not so - because in order to understand that definition, you still need some specific physics knowledge.

If that was true, then nobody could ever learn physics unless they already knew it. And yet, people manage to learn physics from scratch all the time.

A scientific definition cannot be understood per se, without reference to some physics theory.

Of course it can. Technical scientific terms are always defined in terms of simpler concepts. At some point, those concepts are everyday, familiar concepts. No knowledge is completely disconnected from other knowledge.

But when you read stories about sky fairies, where can you go to check if they are true or not? Only to another "believer" in sky fairies. Right?

I all depends on what you stake on proving something to be "true" or "false".

Does it not matter to you whether what you believe is true or false?

My point is that it is nonsensical to demand evidentiary support for "God". Whatever evidentiary support anyone might provide for "God", it wouldn't be satisfactory already because it is evidentiary support, and as such, subject to constant revision.

Almost no evidence is conclusive of anything. All evidence tends to support a view, or tell against it. One would assume that if God exists as advertised by the religious, then their would be some reasonable evidence that tended to support the existence of God. It doesn't seem to me that it would be stupid to ask somebody who believes in God to provide at least some evidence for that belief. If there's no basis for his beliefs, I would ask why he believes. That would seem to me to be a sensible question.

Knowledge of God would -given the definition of God as being The Creator, The First Cause, The Alpha and Omega, The Absolute- have to be a matter of absolutes: and absolutes are not something that could be arrived at via the path of evidentiary support.

I don't see why knowledge of God has to be "supreme" knowledge of the kind you're talking about here. I think a lot of people believe in God because they believe they have personal experience of God, not on the basis of First Cause and All-Powerful Creator of the Cosmos, but on the basis of "God helps me when I'm in trouble or feeling low". That kind of thing. Does that kind of knowledge of God not count for anything, for you?

What you are saying above presumes there is such a thing as objective reality. Philosophy has aptly been pointing out for millenia how problematic the notion of objective reality is.

Strangely, this only seems to bother philosophers.

 

[iceaura]

Then you are missing the point entirely.
Anything we teach anyone is some form of indoctrination or other.

If that's the point, it isn't missed but rejected.

Not everything taught is indoctrinated, not everything learned is doctrine, there is a difference between teaching and indoctrination. Some would say they are almost mutually exclusive - at least, antagonistic in purpose.

I don't think all theists indoctrinate their children, or that all theism is indoctrination. And I agree that there are atheistic doctrines - including the belief systems of some fairly doctrinaire religious sects. But the OP makes such distinctions difficult and invisible, treating atheism itself as a belief system and all atheists as having a doctrinaire atheistic belief system. It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question, if (like me) you regard indoctrination as suspect and undesirable in general.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

But atheism is not a teaching. It's the absence of a teaching. :shrug:

Am I indoctrinating my children when I tell them that witches aren't real?

*************
M*W: I don't believe there is anything that lacks teaching substance. Actually, atheism does have its teaching points, it just doesn't have dogma.

And about witches? You are mistaken. I understand the concept of not putting fear into your children's minds about witches, but the fact is that witches do exist. They may not wear that black pointed hat like depicted on Hallowe'en, but they do exist in many forms. It seems as if you don't know much about Paganism. "Witches" are derived from the ancient earth religion of "Wicca." That, in fact, is a good thing. Unfortunately, children, especially the younger ones, have been indoctrinated that witches are bad people when actually a Wiccan connotates a "wise" person, one who values and protects the earth.

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

"To aim to convert a man by miracles is a profanation of the soul." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:

"The supreme end of education is expert discernment in all things -- the power to tell the good from the bad, the genuine from the counterfeit, and to prefer the good and genuine to the bad and counterfeit." ~ Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784, English Lexicographer, Critic and Writer

 

[greenberg]

Not so - because in order to understand that definition, you still need some specific physics knowledge.

If that was true, then nobody could ever learn physics unless they already knew it. And yet, people manage to learn physics from scratch all the time.

A scientific definition cannot be understood per se, without reference to some physics theory.

Of course it can. Technical scientific terms are always defined in terms of simpler concepts. At some point, those concepts are everyday, familiar concepts. No knowledge is completely disconnected from other knowledge.

Do note that the "everyday, familiar" concepts are still something we learn. They are not a given. Also, we pick up a folk metaphysics which we tend to take for granted - it is within those folk metaphysics that our understanding of specific theories starts, and often, remains.
Besides, you are not really disagreeing with what I said - read again.


And yet when it comes to learning about what religions say about "God", this basic principle of learning is often being forgotten - as if when it comes to God, we wouldn't need to first have a specific basis for understanding. Ie. some knowledge of scriptures.

Does it not matter to you whether what you believe is true or false?

That depends on the topic in question - whether it is a topic at all that can reasonably, with foreseeable means and effort be assessed as either "true" or "false".

Almost no evidence is conclusive of anything. All evidence tends to support a view, or tell against it. One would assume that if God exists as advertised by the religious, then their would be some reasonable evidence that tended to support the existence of God. It doesn't seem to me that it would be stupid to ask somebody who believes in God to provide at least some evidence for that belief. If there's no basis for his beliefs, I would ask why he believes. That would seem to me to be a sensible question.

Then ask them.

I don't see why knowledge of God has to be "supreme" knowledge of the kind you're talking about here. I think a lot of people believe in God because they believe they have personal experience of God, not on the basis of First Cause and All-Powerful Creator of the Cosmos, but on the basis of "God helps me when I'm in trouble or feeling low". That kind of thing. Does that kind of knowledge of God not count for anything, for you?

That kind of knowledge is tricky. It does not seem to be transmittable from one person to another, and in effect, often serves as a means to assert oneself over others.

I don't doubt that many people who claim to believe in God, in fact believe in God. But many of them are giving nonsensical instructions as to how to arrive at that belief - instructions that are impossible to act upon or would require one to be immoral or corrupt in order to act upon. And this, and not the lack of evidentiary support, is my problem with them. I don't have a problem with accepting that currently, I might have no evidence for the existence of God or that they cannot present it to me. I accept that I would first need to have certain qualifications in order to come to that sort of evidence. However, and this is the crux, the instructions they often give are impossible to act upon.

Instructions like "You need to be 100% honest in your request for God to show himself to you", "You must be willing to give up your ego", "You must accept the consequences of God making himself known to you before he will make himself known to you", "You have to be willing to give your life to God, without that, you won't know God", "You must love God freely".

Importantly, these are typical problems I encounter with Christianity.
I don't know all that much about Hinduism, but I do know that it is vastly different from Christianity, that arriving at a belief in Krishna might be completely different than arriving at a belief in Jehovah.

There are some significant differences between religions. The usual Western atheism is calibrated against Christian notions of God, but I find it is rather pointless against some other notions of God.

What you are saying above presumes there is such a thing as objective reality. Philosophy has aptly been pointing out for millenia how problematic the notion of objective reality is.

Strangely, this only seems to bother philosophers.

Scientists take objective reality for granted.

 

[Yorda]

i wasn't indoctrinated by my parents, i just inherited their genes. that's why i believe the same things they do.

The Creator, The First Cause, The Alpha and Omega, The Absolute, The Highest of the High, The Purest of the Pure.

you said well. you are not far away from the kingdom of heathen, greenberg.

 

[greenberg]

Not everything taught is indoctrinated, not everything learned is doctrine, there is a difference between teaching and indoctrination. Some would say they are almost mutually exclusive - at least, antagonistic in purpose.

If only.

Look, for practical everyday purposes, of course I agree with your differentiation.

But when it comes to more intricate issues of knowledge acquisition and thought systems, there is no essential difference between indoctrination and teaching: both are forms of conditioning.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Am I indoctrinating my children when I tell them that witches aren't real?

Telling someone your opinion is not indoctrination. Indoctrination has to do with the mode of interaction. For example if shaming, mocking, overload, making people repeat things to some unpleasant degree, punishment for belief is part of the 'informing' it is indoctrination. And these things can happen implicitly and non-verbally, even by parents who are trying to be balanced or open minded. Children are very sensitive.

But to choose the content of what you tell your children as an example shows a misunderstanding of what indoctrination is. It is the dynamic between the individuals.