Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

I was not aware that our judicial system was used by the Ancient Hebrews.

This is partly my point, we do not know what sort of system was used, to determine what an unlawful act was.
Our notion of "rape" is defined by law, and by moral codes of conduct, but there is nothing to say that such a law, or the moral implication, were present at that time, to those people. If there was no such law, then they can't be accused of rape, any more than an animal could be accused of rape. Another alternative is that, it may have been lawful for a woman to obey the man in charge, without question. There's just no way of telling.
This particular act could have been the last straw for all we know, hence the destruction.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

I agree that they were acting like animals. But compare what they did to what poor old Onan did when he incurred the wrath of the Lord.

"Hence the destruction"? You have a funny way of looking at things. It was the defiled woman who was cut up into pieces. What do you take that to mean ? What did the tribes do with the pieces ? Were they kosher?
?

Come off it. I didn't ask for one-line irrelevant responses. I asked for your understanding of that text. Stop dodging the issue.


What do YOU think that story means. Re-tell it as you understand it and, in doing so, answer my questions !

 

[Varda]

Rather than indoctrinating, atheists present the world to their children as having no absolutes

except the speed of light

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

I agree that they were acting like animals. But compare what they did to what poor old Onan did when he incurred the wrath of the Lord.

What did he do?

It was the defiled woman who was cut up into pieces. What do you take that to mean ? What did the tribes do with the pieces ? Were they kosher?
?

I've no idea.

Come off it. I didn't ask for one-line irrelevant responses. I asked for your understanding of that text. Stop dodging the issue.

I don't have an understanding of it, nor have I ever claimed to.

What do YOU think that story means. Re-tell it as you understand it and, in doing so, answer my questions !

I don't see it as a story, not to the point where I can say I understand it.
Nobody can say they understand it, they can only look at it from their perspective, just as you are. My perspective is, there is no real background to get an overall picture of the situation, and as such, it is pointless to speculate.

What do you want me to say, Myles, because it seem you are not satisfied with the discussion?
Why are you accusing me of dodging questions?
Which questions do I keep dodging?

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



What did he do?



I've no idea.



I don't have an understanding of it, nor have I ever claimed to.



I don't see it as a story, not to the point where I can say I understand it.
Nobody can say they understand it, they can only look at it from their perspective, just as you are. My perspective is, there is no real background to get an overall picture of the situation, and as such, it is pointless to speculate.

What do you want me to say, Myles, because it seem you are not satisfied with the discussion?
Why are you accusing me of dodging questions?
Which questions do I keep dodging?

Jan.

You were previously dodging the issues by putting your own favoureable gloss on the story.

The question now becomes one of whether you believe the bible. If not, no problem. If you do believe it you are admitting to believing something you cannot understand. Which is it ?

 

[superluminal]

I sense "squirming" might be the correct answer...

 

[Jan Ardena]

You were previously dodging the issues by putting your own favoureable gloss on the story.

That doesn't make sense. If as you say I put my "own favoureable gloss on the story", then I didn't dodge the question.
You are so desparate to get some kind of result, you overlook these things.
Apart from that, I have given my explanation, and if you don't believe me, that's your business.

The question now becomes one of whether you believe the bible. If not, no problem. If you do believe it you are admitting to believing something you cannot understand. Which is it ?

How predictable.
How about another option. I believe in God (theist), but I don't fully understand God, hence the reason why I believe.
How does that grab you?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

For some practical purposes, by some theists and by some atheists, I might be called "atheist", although I don't identify with that label.

My own resolution of that situation was to notice that calling myself a theist or agnostic misled people much more than calling myself an atheist did.

I saw nothing in misleading people any more than was unavoidable.

And there is no need to identify oneself with a label of oneself - unless the "self" is the supposed content of some communication ?

 

[Myles]

You were previously dodging the issues by putting your own favoureable gloss on the story.

That doesn't make sense. If as you say I put my "own favoureable gloss on the story", then I didn't dodge the question.
You are so desparate to get some kind of result, you overlook these things.
Apart from that, I have given my explanation, and if you don't believe me, that's your business.



How predictable.
How about another option. I believe in God (theist), but I don't fully understand God, hence the reason why I believe.
How does that grab you?

Jan.

I'm afraid the outcome was predictable. I was not desperate to get a result, as you put it, merely to show that you were in no position to be critical of other people as you have in this and other threads.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want but, when you have a go at those who do not share your beliefs, you are asking to be brought to book.
I must say that not understanding something as a basis for belief strikes me as odd.

Let's now draw a line under this discussion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

I'm afraid the outcome was predictable.

Obviously, as you are unable to accept any ideas other than your own, it becomes easy to back you into a corner.

[quoteI was not desperate to get a result, as you put it, [/quote]

Then why bring up the judges text?
Why can't you accept the reason behind my explanation, and base your responses on that?

...merely to show that you were in no position to be critical of other people as you have in this and other threads.

This is discussion forum, this is the place to position oneself to be critical of other people, if it is necessary.
What of the criticisms of theist and theism, by yourself and other atheist fanatics, in this or other threads. Do you regard them as being in a position to spew their intense dislike, for no other reason than what one believes?
Where is their explanation for such negative emotion?

You are entitled to believe whatever you want but, when you have a go at those who do not share your beliefs, you are asking to be brought to book.

As I said before, your ideology seems to be based purely on assumptions, backed by emotions. I don't care whether you believe like me or not, its not important, but you care deeply that i don't believe like you, or other atheist fanatics.
When your assumptions are revealed for what they are, nothing but emotion, you find yourself in a position, where your only defence is attack. This seems to be the trend with all fanatics, atheist, or theist.

I must say that not understanding something as a basis for belief strikes me as odd.

I understand, but what if something is partially understood (not fully), as a basis for belief.
Here is an example of another trait of fanatics, dishonesty. You are so desperate to get a result, you would fabricate something to fit into your thinking.
I am almost sure that you are unable to conduct a discussion with theist, without resorting to dishonesty, attacks, and personal attacks.

Let's now draw a line under this discussion.

I would, as you have no where else to go.

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

What of the criticisms of theist and theism, by yourself and other atheist fanatics, in this or other threads. Do you regard them as being in a position to spew their intense dislike, for no other reason than what one believes?
Where is their explanation for such negative emotion?

Religions don't pay taxes.
Religions abuse power.
Religions divide people.

Should I keep it coming?

Here is an example of another trait of fanatics, dishonesty. You are so desperate to get a result, you would fabricate something to fit into your thinking.

Said the kettle to the pot?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Religions don't pay taxes.
Religions abuse power.
Religions divide people.

Should I keep it coming?



Said the kettle to the pot?

Theism is different to religion.
Try again.

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

Theism: The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.

Religion: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Thanks Jan, for demonstrating this statement:

Here is an example of another trait of fanatics, dishonesty. You are so desperate to get a result, you would fabricate something to fit into your thinking.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Theism: The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.

Religion: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Thanks Jan, for demonstrating this statement:

Religion; an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine.

Try again.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



Obviously, as you are unable to accept any ideas other than your own, it becomes easy to back you into a corner.

[quoteI was not desperate to get a result, as you put it,

Then why bring up the judges text?
Why can't you accept the reason behind my explanation, and base your responses on that?



This is discussion forum, this is the place to position oneself to be critical of other people, if it is necessary.
What of the criticisms of theist and theism, by yourself and other atheist fanatics, in this or other threads. Do you regard them as being in a position to spew their intense dislike, for no other reason than what one believes?
Where is their explanation for such negative emotion?



As I said before, your ideology seems to be based purely on assumptions, backed by emotions. I don't care whether you believe like me or not, its not important, but you care deeply that i don't believe like you, or other atheist fanatics.
When your assumptions are revealed for what they are, nothing but emotion, you find yourself in a position, where your only defence is attack. This seems to be the trend with all fanatics, atheist, or theist.



I understand, but what if something is partially understood (not fully), as a basis for belief.
Here is an example of another trait of fanatics, dishonesty. You are so desperate to get a result, you would fabricate something to fit into your thinking.
I am almost sure that you are unable to conduct a discussion with theist, without resorting to dishonesty, attacks, and personal attacks.



I would, as you have no where else to go.

Jan.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear, I have rattled your cage, which was no part of my intention. I was content to drop the subject but you have left me little choice but to answer you.

Why did I bring up the judges text ? Because it's one of the more easily recognizable pieces of crap in the Bible. If you look back at an earlier post of yours ,you will see that you claim the Bible is valid. Now you are saying you do not understand it. How confused you are! I suspect you are the one with nowhere to go which explains why you cling to a belief you cannot support.


You have been told on numerous occasions that atheists have no ideology. You cannot help but assume they have because that is how your mind works.I believe in the supremacy of reason, which is what sets us apart from other animals. Why do you think the God you believe in gave us reason, if we are to abandon it when it comes to religious belief ? And tell me what assumptions I have made and in what sense you understand them to be based on emotion ! That is your department, not mine.

If you can find an example of something I fabricated to make my point. please point it out !

Again, I would be interested in knowing which of my posts show that I was dishonest.

I am at your disposal if you wish to discuss other passages of the Bible with me.

 

[superluminal]

Why can't you accept...

...

Jan.

Here it is in a nutshell.

Theism asks us to accept (knowing full well themselves that their "belief" does not rest on a foundation of pragmatic evidence) their claims. Then a nonbeliever rightly questions this and the theist begins to preach.

You chose to believe. Don't take nonbelievers to task for asking for a bit of logic and evidence to support your claims, especially when, as in organized religion, they are asserted as FACT and they do their damndest to force it on everyone else. (and avoid taxes, as Q pointed out).

And quit pissing over definitions. You know what we mean and you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[superluminal]

Is it morally wrong to ask for substantive evidence of a thing before accepting it?

 

[superluminal]

Is it morally repugnant to ask your children to do this?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Is it morally wrong to ask for substantive evidence of a thing before accepting it?

How many people take this as a general outlook. In the context of this discussion a child will learn what to believe by what their parents decide needs sustantive evidence and what does not. Not all indoctrination is the crass fundamentalist kind. Many things are driven home by omissions, contradictions, body language and so on. People who tend to call themselves atheists, might, if they looked carefully, more likely, if the asked for outside assessment, find that they accept a lot of things because of habit, tradition, fear of really trying to find out, etc. They ask for no substactive evidence, allow themselves to be bluffed or go by authority. What they see in the crassest of theists is something they participate in, perhaps, but not allways, in more subtle ways. Politics is one realm where we can see atheists are just as vulnerable to government BS and tradition and abstract ideas that are not meeting reality.

 

[superluminal]

How many people take this as a general outlook. In the context of this discussion a child will learn what to believe by what their parents decide needs sustantive evidence and what does not. Not all indoctrination is the crass fundamentalist kind. Many things are driven home by omissions, contradictions, body language and so on. People who tend to call themselves atheists, might, if they looked carefully, more likely, if the asked for outside assessment, find that they accept a lot of things because of habit, tradition, fear of really trying to find out, etc. They ask for no substactive evidence, allow themselves to be bluffed or go by authority. What they see in the crassest of theists is something they participate in, perhaps, but not allways, in more subtle ways. Politics is one realm where we can see atheists are just as vulnerable to government BS and tradition and abstract ideas that are not meeting reality.

Yes. You're right. There's virtually zero difference between atheists and theists. Please go here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79730