Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[spidergoat]

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.

Atheism contains no values, as some are all too willing to point out.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

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.

belief system

All cultures develop a system of values that are applied to meet a culture's needs. Our understanding of the values of a culture and our ...

Cultural norms that convey core values and encourage individuals to seek new opportunities and work toward a common purpose.

A belief system doesn't have to be religious, it can also be an ideology. Intuitevely, you proclaim a united ideology by generalising "athiests", as though they all come under the same banner. This is characteristic of some kind of belief system.
Is it possible to indoctrinate children into your ideology?
Of course it is.
I've heard children as young as 7 years old say God does not exist, and when you ask them why, they don't have an answer. How have they come to this conclusion?

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.

Some do some don't, that is a fact.

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

sure,

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

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.

You avoid the painful business of thinking about life by clinging to a book of doubtful origin as your guide to life.

They mould young minds by teaching them about their holy books in the same manner that one teaches a parrot talk.

These are mainly from the post before last, one is from the last post.

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 ?

Yes, if you are only prepared to accept scientific evidence, because it shows that either you have requested this because you don't understand the nature of God which is believed in, or you are playing games. If you don't agree with the evidences which are put foreward, (use search engine) then your position is, you don't believe, nothing more.

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.

Why on earth would I want to do that?

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 ?

Simple. The point i made to SnakeLord is written for all to see, so belief doesn't enter into it. Does that make sense to you?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

A belief system doesn't have to be religious, it can also be an ideology. Intuitevely, you proclaim a united ideology by generalising "athiests", as though they all come under the same banner.

Your intuition is a fault , there. No united ideology is claimed, and there is no one "atheist culture" - there are dozens of different ones, with quite varied belief systems (including supernatural).

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

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

I don't know which bible you got this from, but every bible I have ever read states that "in the begining, God created the heavens and the earth".
Elohim, acts as a single noun in some case, i.e God created the heavens and earth.

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

You assume you are right, and as such feel no need to give examples from other scriptures. I believe you are wrong, and you interpret the sentence in such a way because it suits your world view. Please give examples of other scriptures, to add weight to your shaky position.

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.

This is another subject matter which is not relevant to the discussion.

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.

The title just asks the question, I don't see how it is loaded. The important aspect of this thread are the responses given by atheists. It may not be in your interest to be part of a belief system, and like the biblical quote you made earlier, you can amend it to give comfort to yourself. But in the real world, you have a belief system, get over it.
Your contribution heavily included how intelligent atheist children (?) are compared to their theist counterparts, in matters containing religion and scripture. This is undoubtedly a belief, one which is espoused by all fanatical atheists, although they refer to theist in general as opposed theist children.
As for intelligence regarding scriptures, your reference to God quote, says it all.

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.

Thank you. I'll print that section out, blow it up, and hang it on my wall.

Which makes this kind of commentary by you 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.

:worship:

Jan.

 

[superluminal]

I thought we settled this. We all indoctrinate our children to one degree or another. I don't see what's so amazing about this. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists ask their children to believe, while atheists ask their children to think. I don't see what's so difficult about this.

 

[lightgigantic]

I thought we settled this. We all indoctrinate our children to one degree or another. I don't see what's so amazing about this. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists ask their children to believe, while atheists ask their children to think. I don't see what's so difficult about this.

What does atheism rest solidly upon if not metaphysics?
:scratchin:

 

[greenberg]

What doubts has he demonstrated?

First and foremost, doubts about which God is the "right one".

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?

For one, how is one to know that God is the same person/personality in all the scriptures? Surely, one is told to study and figure things out for oneself - but this is only possible if one in advance has some positive outlook on one's abilities to do that. I think many atheists do not have such a positive outlook, whether they know or admit it or not.

For two, by "blaming SnakeLord" I meant that he has been called "willfully rebelling" and such. I don't recall you ever calling him that, but some others did.

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?

When someone claims to know The Truth, they are thereby claiming to be in possession of superior knowledge.

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.

Not according to those people who have beaten fire and brimstone into me. According to them, they were just telling me The Truth, per God's decree. According to them, they are not to be blamed if I don't like God's Message, and they also won't dress it up to make it seem more palatable to me, the wilfully rebelling or delusional sinner.

Looking at Christianity, it seems that there is no difference between the subject (God's Message) and the way it was taught to many of us (fire and brimstone being beaten into us). That the way we were taught was simply part of the Christian doctrine itself.

If I am to believe that I am evil, delusional or in denial, then I, of course, cannot but agree with those Christians.

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.

Ideally, in an academic setting, I would agree.

But I think backgrounds and qualifications are always the issue in such discussions. I mean, people don't discuss these things simply because they fancy intellectual masturbation. Perhaps some do. But for some of us at least, discussing religion is very personal, causes a lot of strain. And how would it not - it is our lives that are at stake, no?

 

[greenberg]

I thought we settled this. We all indoctrinate our children to one degree or another. I don't see what's so amazing about this. The difference between theists and atheists is that theists ask their children to believe, while atheists ask their children to think. I don't see what's so difficult about this.

Says the atheist parent to his child: "Think! Isn't it obvious that so and so is like that?"

:bugeye:

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

First and foremost, doubts about which God is the "right one".

That's not doubt, that's tactics.

For one, how is one to know that God is the same person/personality in all the scriptures?

Because the same essential qualities which can only be attributed to God, the Supreme Original Cause, is present in all the scriptures. At least the ones readily available to us.

Surely, one is told to study and figure things out for oneself - but this is only possible if one in advance has some positive outlook on one's abilities to do that. I think many atheists do not have such a positive outlook, whether they know or admit it or not.

You're taking it out of context. Any scripture you can get i.e. bible, qur'an, BG, all give account of these essential qualities belonging to a single personality, commonly known as God. One does not need to have a positive outlook to understand this, one only need to be able to read and understand at a basic level. Whether one believes or not, is an entirely different matter.

For two, by "blaming SnakeLord" I meant that he has been called "willfully rebelling" and such. I don't recall you ever calling him that, but some others did.

I haven't called him that, but I can understand why he has been accused.

When someone claims to know The Truth, they are thereby claiming to be in possession of superior knowledge.

I would be weary of someone claiming to know the (absolute) truth. But one thing is for sure we can all recognise truth, whether we are educated or not.

We obtain knowledge to come to understand truth, not that truth is knowledge.
I can't imagine what "superior knowledge" is?

Not according to those people who have beaten fire and brimstone into me. According to them, they were just telling me The Truth, per God's decree.

Surely you can find out, now that you're grown up, whether they were telling the truth per Gods' decree, by pitting their actions against the actions of Jesus, the object of their religiousness.

Looking at Christianity, it seems that there is no difference between the subject (God's Message) and the way it was taught to many of us (fire and brimstone being beaten into us). That the way we were taught was simply part of the Christian doctrine itself.

I don't recall Jesus beating fire and brimstone to any of his deciples or audiences. Do you? I
f the ways and actions of Jesus are not followed wherever possible in the life of a christian, then what use is a christian doctrine, in the context of real religion?

If I am to believe that I am evil, delusional or in denial, then I, of course, cannot but agree with those Christians.

Are you evil, delusional, or in denial, for real?
A question for you personally to answer.

But for some of us at least, discussing religion is very personal, causes a lot of strain. And how would it not - it is our lives that are at stake, no?

Well I have an idea of your background, so I will take that into consideration.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



belief system

All cultures develop a system of values that are applied to meet a culture's needs. Our understanding of the values of a culture and our ...

Cultural norms that convey core values and encourage individuals to seek new opportunities and work toward a common purpose.

A belief system doesn't have to be religious, it can also be an ideology. Intuitevely, you proclaim a united ideology by generalising "athiests", as though they all come under the same banner. This is characteristic of some kind of belief system.
Is it possible to indoctrinate children into your ideology?
Of course it is.
I've heard children as young as 7 years old say God does not exist, and when you ask them why, they don't have an answer. How have they come to this conclusion?



Some do some don't, that is a fact.



sure,



These are mainly from the post before last, one is from the last post.



Yes, if you are only prepared to accept scientific evidence, because it shows that either you have requested this because you don't understand the nature of God which is believed in, or you are playing games. If you don't agree with the evidences which are put foreward, (use search engine) then your position is, you don't believe, nothing more.



Why on earth would I want to do that?



Simple. The point i made to SnakeLord is written for all to see, so belief doesn't enter into it. Does that make sense to you?

Jan.

No evidence, no belief , nothing to discuss.

 

[Myles]

What does atheism rest solidly upon if not metaphysics?
:scratchin:

Common sense and applied intelligence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your intuition is a fault , there. No united ideology is claimed, and there is no one "atheist culture" - there are dozens of different ones, with quite varied belief systems (including supernatural).

Maybe.

I would have thought you would have realized by now that we have no rigid belief sustem We go where the evidence leads.

He uses the term "we" in having no rigid belief system, then he goes on to say "we" go where the evidence leads. Obviously he was talking atheists. How can he know all people who regard themselves as atheist think that way, unless there was some universal code of conduct?

So, if you want to define as indoctrination, bringing up one's children to be open to experience and question everything ,then do so.

In the same paragraph he implies that atheists bring up their children to be open, to question, and experience everything. How can he predict that if there is no universal code of conduct, or belief system set in place?

Jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Common sense and applied intelligence.

but when you venture into metaphysics you also have a third element.
can you guess what it is?

 

[Myles]

Maybe.



He uses the term "we" in having no rigid belief system, then he goes on to say "we" go where the evidence leads. Obviously he was talking atheists. How can he know all people who regard themselves as atheist think that way, unless there was some universal code of conduct?



In the same paragraph he implies that atheists bring up their children to be open, to question, and experience everything. How can he predict that if there is no universal code of conduct, or belief system set in place?

Jan.

You just don't get it and I doubt you ever will. As an atheist the on;ly belief system I have, if you insist on calling it that, is built on my life experience. I imagine most atheists would share my view. I question everything and evaluate it according to reason. No hokus pokus.

If you want a name for my "belief system" it's called havig an open mind.

 

[Myles]

but when you venture into metaphysics you also have a third element.
can you guess what it is?

Bollocks.

 

[sniffy]

A child asks: 'Where did I come from?'

What do you answer?

 

[capelli]

You just don't get it and I doubt you ever will. As an atheist the on;ly belief system I have, if you insist on calling it that, is built on my life experience. I imagine most atheists would share my view. I question everything and evaluate it according to reason. No hokus pokus.

If you want a name for my "belief system" it's called havig an open mind.

Just out of interest, do you believe that there is no god when you say you are an atheist or that you merely do not have a belief in deities?

I didn't realise until recently how broad the term atheism is. Before discovering this I often thought that atheist had a belief system as such, since I thought that all atheists believed that there was definitely not a god. But as wikipedia says: there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. So therefore I'd say a belief system in general is not true, but if someone spoke of the strong atheists as having a belief system then they may be closer to the truth.

 

[redwards]

Just out of interest, do you believe that there is no god when you say you are an atheist or that you merely do not have a belief in deities?

I didn't realise until recently how broad the term atheism is. Before discovering this I often thought that atheist had a belief system as such, since I thought that all atheists believed that there was definitely not a god. But as wikipedia says: there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. So therefore I'd say a belief system in general is not true, but if someone spoke of the strong atheists as having a belief system then they may be closer to the truth.

People seem obsessed with difference between "weak atheism" and "strong atheism." Functionally, there isn't a difference.

I think atheism itself is a stupid word which lends itself to these moronic arguments. I don't believe in astrology, ghosts, unicorns, santa, or monsters under the bed, either. I don't have a special word for any of those disbeliefs that I feel the need to quibble over.

 

[capelli]

People seem obsessed with difference between "weak atheism" and "strong atheism." Functionally, there isn't a difference.

I think atheism itself is a stupid word which lends itself to these moronic arguments. I don't believe in astrology, ghosts, unicorns, santa, or monsters under the bed, either. I don't have a special word for any of those disbeliefs that I feel the need to quibble over.

Well, I'd say there is definitely a difference, I'd call myself a weak atheist but definitely not a strong atheist. A lack of belief in something and a definite belief in something not existing seem very different to me when speaking of gods

Atheism just makes all of these millions of debates a little shorter, instead of saying "I don't believe that a god exists" someone can say "I'm an atheist". There probably aren't as many debates on those things you mention so the words may not exist(I wouldn't be surprised if some of them do).

 

[redwards]

Well, I'd say there is definitely a difference, I'd call myself a weak atheist but definitely not a strong atheist. A lack of belief in something and a definite belief in something not existing seem very different to me when speaking of gods

Philosophically, there's a difference. Functionally, not really.

Atheism just makes all of these millions of debates a little shorter, instead of saying "I don't believe that a god exists" someone can say "I'm an atheist". There probably aren't as many debates on those things you mention so the words may not exist(I wouldn't be surprised if some of them do).

Right, but again, the term itself is loaded. "Atheist" sounds like "nazi" to some people. And it describes a position which is defined as a negative. I can't think of another such term.