Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[Fraggle Rocker]

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.

This is why Wiccans call themselves Wiccans and don't go out of their way to identify themselves as witches among non-Wiccans. "Witch" has come to mean the classic figure from Halloween or The Wizard of Oz.

It's been hypothesized that Christian leaders carefully crafted that bent, toothless, wrinkled, wispy-haired image--the image of a perfectly ordinary old woman in the years before modern dentistry, nutrition, medicine and cosmetics--to discourage their flock from seeking the counsel of old women, which would undermine their own authority. War was so ubiquitous in the Dark Ages that in many societies old men were rare, so the only "elders" available for helpful advice and perspective were female. This was a problem for a monotheistic religion whose only god, his son and all their priests had penises.

The Harry Potter stories have created a generation of children who are comfortable with the idea of most wizards and witches being perfectly nice people who happen to have magical powers. Perhaps when they grow up there will be no stigma to calling oneself a witch.

Pop culture to the rescue.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

So you have scriptoral (sic) references. Is anyone denying it ?

You're kidding, right?

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 ?

That is a different debate. One that has been brought up time and time again, and can never be agreed upon.
It is your comfort zone.

Jan.

 

[GeoffP]

The Harry Potter stories have created a generation of children who are comfortable with the idea of most wizards and witches being perfectly nice people who happen to have magical powers. Perhaps when they grow up there will be no stigma to calling oneself a witch.

Not if they weigh more than a duck. There are laws, you know.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

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.

a) By all scriptoral accounts, the Supreme Original Cause, is a single entity, God. As to whether God exists, that is not the point. Some believe yes, some believe no.

b) I don't really know anything about Zues, as for Yahweh/Allah, yes, according to scriptoral reference he is the Supreme Being. As for FSM. What is it?

c) That's another way of getting into the "does God exist" argument. I don't think that one is ever going to be resolved in these forums. Do you? As such, I see no point in directly debating that.

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

Not really. I assume that everything has come about because of the original cause.
I don't really have any evidence that would make everybody say "yes we agree", so I guess its just common sense/opinion. Do you have any evidence of something coming into being without a cause?

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

Why? Millions of creatures can have wings. How many creatures can be the SOC? The original cause must be one, its that simple. Number one, will always be number one, no matter how many times you see it written.
How many different ways are there to say number one, yet it means the same thing?

Interesting. Why is scripture important to you?

How else can one learn about God?
They are the foundation of understand who and what is God, and who and what we are in relation to God. Without them, or respect to them, we will just do as we like.

If somebody wrote it down, it must be true? Do you believe all scripture, or only certain scripture?

This is irrelevant. The point I make, is not based on belief.

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

You'll have to enlighten me on Zues. What scripture will I find him in?

Jan.

 

[superluminal]

Why do you believe scripture is the word of god? Where were you indoctrinated... I mean, where did you learn this? Who told you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

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

Ah well, there only theists.

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.

No, I don't have sympathy for that position.
I think it is unecessarily arrogant.

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 ?

Originally the question was;

Do atheists give their children exposure to theism?

Offer them the choice to believe in God?

Any athiests with theist children here?

I'm sure a simple yes or no could be apropriate as an answer. But you seem to have blown it out of all proportion. That alone is subject to suspicion, imo.

Obviously, you can't lump all atheists in one basket, but there is a specific type of atheist, present company accepted, I believe that cannot expose their children to theism, and would not offer them the choice to believe in God. They find it hard to capitalise God' name, and to admit that he is described as a Supreme Original Cause, yet see fit to bring every verse, that taken on its own, without understanding, in a effort to discredit God.
How can you or they be non biased toward religion, with your offspring?
I would guess it would damned near impossible, and as such indoctrination against God, must be a norm

You people are seriously intense.
So intense, the scriptures make more sense.
http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

Jan.



Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do you believe scripture is the word of god? Where were you indoctrinated... I mean, where did you learn this? Who told you?

I have stated my position regarding scripture.
Let's stick with that.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



You're kidding, right?



That is a different debate. One that has been brought up time and time again, and can never be agreed upon.
It is your comfort zone.

Jan.

I disagree. You have yet to come upwith a single thought of your own. Ypou just quote scripture because toy regard it as infallible. As an atheist, I have no such ancient document to fall back on, so I brought my children up teaching them to think for themselves, commensurate with their age. When it came to science, I created little experiments which they could observe and which would help answer questions they would ask. They were not indoctrinated: they were educated

The best you can do is to indoctrinate kids using a bible.Any questions kids ask will be answered by reference to the bible and/or what god wants us to do. So it is apposite that you answer the question concerning the evidence you have for placing your unswerving belief in a collection of ancient documents which have debated for centuries without any consensus being arrived at; see all the Christian sects which exist because of disputes over how the bible is interpreted.

As far as comfort zones are concerned , I suggest you look to yourself. You avoid the painful business of thinking about life by clinging to a book of doubtful origin as your guide to life.

 

[greenberg]

Jan,


I would appreciate if you'd comment on my post earlier in this thread - here.

Do you still disagree that the person's background and qualification should be taken into account when talking about God?

Thanks.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

I disagree. You have yet to come upwith a single thought of your own.

A case of the pot kettle-calling.

Ypou just quote scripture because toy regard it as infallible.

I have quoted scripture once in an attempt to prove my point. And I also said belief does not enter into it.

As an atheist, I have no such ancient document to fall back on,

As an atheist, your position is you don't believe in God, period. Don't try and complicate it. Your lack of belief is one of two reason, God does not exist, or you deny the authority of God.

When it came to science, I created little experiments which they could observe and which would help answer questions they would ask. They were not indoctrinated: they were educated

Wow, you guys are perfect.
Yeah right.
Are you aware that your whole ideology is based on biased assumptions.

The best you can do is to indoctrinate kids using a bible.

*waves hands frantically in front of Myles eyes in the hope of attracting his attention*

I'm here Myles, feel free to ask me whether or not I do, rather than assume it.
Can you see how such an attitude kills the flow of discussion.

So it is apposite that you answer the question concerning the evidence you have for placing your unswerving belief in a collection of ancient documents which have debated for centuries without any consensus being arrived at; see all the Christian sects which exist because of disputes over how the bible is interpreted.

Let me make a suggestion. Go back and read what the point of my posts are, and then get back to with the right subject matter.

As far as comfort zones are concerned , I suggest you look to yourself. You avoid the painful business of thinking about life by clinging to a book of doubtful origin as your guide to life.

You just keep proving me right don't you.
You can only argue in the domain of 'existence of God', because you can then ask for scientific evidence, justifying your view. Anything outside of that you or your like-minds simply cannot handle it. You have nothing of any substance to discuss this topic.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan,


I would appreciate if you'd comment on my post earlier in this thread - here.

Do you still disagree that the person's background and qualification should be taken into account when talking about God?

Thanks.

No problem. I'll get back to you.

Jan.

 

[superluminal]

Yeah right.
Are you aware that your whole ideology is based on biased assumptions.

You mean atheism? Interesting. Can you point out some of these assumptions?

 

[Myles]

Myles,



A case of the pot kettle-calling.



I have quoted scripture once in an attempt to prove my point. And I also said belief does not enter into it.



As an atheist, your position is you don't believe in God, period. Don't try and complicate it. Your lack of belief is one of two reason, God does not exist, or you deny the authority of God.



Wow, you guys are perfect.
Yeah right.
Are you aware that your whole ideology is based on biased assumptions.



*waves hands frantically in front of Myles eyes in the hope of attracting his attention*

I'm here Myles, feel free to ask me whether or not I do, rather than assume it.
Can you see how such an attitude kills the flow of discussion.



Let me make a suggestion. Go back and read what the point of my posts are, and then get back to with the right subject matter.



You just keep proving me right don't you.
You can only argue in the domain of 'existence of God', because you can then ask for scientific evidence, justifying your view. Anything outside of that you or your like-minds simply cannot handle it. You have nothing of any substance to discuss this topic.

Jan.

Do atheists indoctrinate children in their belief system ? I would have thought you would have realized by now that we have no rigid belief sustem We go where the evidence leads. So, if you want to define as indoctrination, bringing up one's children to be open to experience and question everything ,then do so. But don't confuse it with what the religious rote-learners do. They mould young minds by teaching them about their holy books in the same manner that one teaches a parrot talk.

"The whole of my ideology is based on biased assumptions ". How about a few examples to back that up ?

I assumed the domain of a putative god was the foundation on which theists based their faith. Is it so unreasonable that someone should ask for evidence ?

If you wish to discuss the topic of this thread without bringing god and religion into it, I'll be happy to talk to you. You set the agenda ! Perhaps we could start by discussing your statement that belief does not enter into it. If yopu have aabandoned belief , with what have you replaced it ?

 

[iceaura]

a) By all scriptoral accounts, the Supreme Original Cause, is a single entity, God.

Book of Genesis, Christian Bible: "In the Beginning, the Gods created the Heavens and the Earth" .

That's without even considering the other scriptures and the other gods therein.

And without considering the obvious: that any Supreme Original Cause is a human invention, set up to take care of some problems we have with our systems of analysis and description, and rapidly losing effectiveness or explanatory power in that role. The larger world, the world outside our little systems, doesn't need one.

Originally the question was;

“
Originally Posted by OP
Do atheists give their children exposure to theism?

Offer them the choice to believe in God?

Any athiests with theist children here?
”
I'm sure a simple yes or no could be apropriate as an answer. But you seem to have blown it out of all proportion. That alone is subject to suspicion, imo.

You can allay your suspicions by noticing that you have misled yourself by selectively quoting, and left out the thread title and other information in the thread revealing more of its nature and purpose, as well as the presumptions upon which it was founded. It was that title and the other info, down through many posts, that has been behind most of my contributions here.

But accurate quoting and careful attention to other people's arguments is something a particular kind of theist - your kind, which you object to having labeled - finds difficult, for some reason.

You may have noticed that I have claimed personal knowledge of two atheistic parents who are not only allowing their children to go to school with theists, learn from theistic teachers, spend time with theistic adults, watch TV and movies and other theistically dominated cultural stuff (which is all but universal among atheistic parents in the US) but are taking their children to church and Sunday School on Sundays. So that question you thought could be answered yes or no was answered by me "yes, at least some".

Which makes this kind of commentary by you

How can you or they be non biased toward religion, with your offspring?
I would guess it would damned near impossible, and as such indoctrination against God, must be a norm

based as it is on ignorant bigotry and an arrogant refusal to recognize its own presuppositions in even what is in front of its eyes, quite offensive; were it not for the automatic slack most people cut for fundies, and that you have been cut here by most posters.

 

[i.bel]

My children are free to believe in any of the millions of gods available. How many would you let your children believe in? Wait, I get the feeling you'd make sure they believe in whatever one it is that you do.

Forgive me, please continue with your anti-atheist tirade.

Yours is the Logical View

There is plenty of evidence man created God/S, but no evidence God/s created man.

The two postulates aren't equal logically- and just saying there ARE two sides doesn't make them equal in weight.
This is Low IQ fallacious logic and moral equivalence.
-

 

[i.bel]

Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

Atheists see theism as delusional.
Why would they subject their children to what they believe as 'delusion' ? :m:

Theists see atheism as delusional too. It works both ways.

As I was saying, just because there are two sides.. doesn't make them equal in weight logically.
This is fallacious logic at it's most eggregious and laughable.
Just as the string title is an oxymoron and fallacy.

There is every evidence that man created Gods.. thousands, and No evidence God/s created man.

If one were to grow up on a desert Island with inately intelligent people without anyone ever having known about any Jesus or Mohammed Myths.. there would be no Chrsitianity nor Islam.. just Rational explanations for physical phenomenon.

You don't have to be "Indoctrinated" with Atheism, that Is the Natural UNindoctrinated state.

[Unintelligent or defensive] Religionists, especially the unsecular pious types, try to foist this idiocy of equivalence of reason of the two positions where there is None.

Here we have the moderator of the Science section - arguing for the Supernatural! (Not to mention herself a Pious Muslim believer.)

Great Stuff sci-f!

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Yes. His posts strike me as a sign of a deep-seated problem common to many people, and nobody so far had the wisdom and the goodwill to address them in a manner to assuage his doubts.

What doubts has he demonstrated?

For the most part, all is simply blamed on him, or on "this is just how it is". And the discussions go on and on, going nowhere.

By claiming that God is the same person/personality in all the scriptures, is blaming SnakeLord, how exactly?

I would imagine that someone with superior knowledge -which monotheists, by the content of their claims, have by definition- would be able to do a better job in explaining the doctrine about God, and cut unhelpful discussions short.

Why does the content of their claims suggest superior knowledge?

It is pointless to take it into account, for the theist or the atheist.

I disagree.

It is as if you are blame theism for your past and present condition, not the person who was beating fire and brimstone into you.
Beating something into your child, no matter what the subject is, is more about the offender than the subject. What you are refering to, IMO, is the individual character of the person.

The story of the Buddha's first sermon makes my point very well:

After his Enlightenment, when the Buddha first went back among people to teach the Dharma, to the first person he came across he introduced himself as "I am the All-Enlightened One!" The man shook his head and left. After that, the Buddha changed the way he approached and taught people. And as the story goes, he was successul then, many people were receptive of his teachings.

Saying "I am the All-Enlightened One!" is a personal statement, and by saying this, he was not offering anything.

Unenlightened people have no real use of absolute declarations, they only put them off and make them spiteful, resentful.

Theism is not about absolute declarations, it is a belief in God, whether one is enlightened or not. If the theist makes absolute declarations of his belief, then again, the individuals character is to be criticised, not theism.

Someone who really wants to help others will find a way to reach them without manipulating and abusing them, without putting them before decisions they cannot make.

So by this, theism is not to blame, it is nuetral, and if honestly explained in its own context, does not have to take our situation into account. But I agree that the onus is on the person to take situations into account, if he knows others situation.

A lot of unnecessary talk and trouble can be eliminated simply by taking into account the person's specific background and qualification.

In this situation, I don't see why that is necessary in this forum, unless backgrounds and qualifications are the issue.

Jan.

 

[ggazoo]

Sam, you're loading the terms and being dishonest again; atheism is not a belief system.

Religion is any belief system of ultimate values that shapes our pursuit of a particular kind of life in this world. This is the reason that it is quite fair to call atheism a religion, and Christianity as well.

 

[KennyJC]

Religion is any belief system of ultimate values that shapes our pursuit of a particular kind of life in this world. This is the reason that it is quite fair to call atheism a religion, and Christianity as well.

Wrong. Without belief in god, the supernatural, rituals, worship, it's not a religion. It's what's called being normal.

 

[Myles]

Jan.
How about a response to my last post to you. I am expecting you to explain, among other things. what form of reasoning you use when you abandon belief.As already stated. I'm quite happy to discuss the subject of this thread with you, without reference to god which seems to be your prefered approach/