Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[Myles]

Myles, you have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know me. You are making assumptions. They are wrong. And your anecdotal evidence of something that you think relates to my life is, above, part of unasked for condescension.

I am not sure what psychological need you have to make such assumptions, but as someone who thinks he is representing the scientific worldview, you should be embarassed.

I think I know enough about you from your posts to make some sort of judgement about your personal beliefs.

For example, you claim that we all rely on personal experience much of the time. That is true when it comes to everyday matters because we have direct empirical experience to rely on. But when it comes to questions of whether God exists, what his attributes are and so on , you have nothing better to offer than assertions based on personal beliefs which you have arrived at for reasons best known to yourself.

Your problem begins when you speak about your beliefs as if they had the support of empirical evidence, which is untrue. Our experience of gravity can be shared ; religious beliefs cannot other than with others of the same persuasion and, even then, because of the abstract language used it, it is not certain that two people are necessarily discussing the same thing. Hence the endflerss interchanges about what god might or might not want, what it means to be re-born and so on.

You have overlooked the fact that my rtemarks were addressed to Grteenberg

 

[lightgigantic]

I'll try to rephrase the whole issue:

Sowhatifit'sdark and myself (although I'm not sure to what extent we are similar in this) have a problem with using "big words", "noble terminology".

For example, I would never say to anyone who is close to me, a friend or relative, "How can I be of service to you?" or "I have come here to offer you my service". I would probably not even say "Is there anything I can do for you?" or "How can I help you?" Instead, if I figured the other person might need my help, I would stick around looking ready to pitch in, or try to circumvent the whole help offer by showing my interest in some other way, like asking questions about the problem at hand.

It has been my experience that direct offers of help have been met with refusal and negativity. If my father is working on something and I see he could use another pair of hands - if I were to come to him and ask him "How can I help you?" he'd probably yell at me and send me away. Such has happened. But if I would stand there, interested, saying something like "How should I do this here?" the work would run smoothly.

Also, when someone offers me help or service, I then feel obligated to consider myself helped or served - even if I actually was not. Many people in my life were also such that they thought a person is helped or served if the helper or servant declared it to be help or service.
The notion of help or service is sometimes used so that the helper or servant can rightfully manipulate the receiver, whereby the receiver has no say in it, because he was the one who was lacking and who thus needed help or service.
There have been people in my life who have, per their own claim, "helped" me, and who expected me to be forever grateful to them, to forever subdue myself to them, and of course to consider myself "saved" by them. And I didn't even ask them for help, and what they did for me was for the most part just another burden for me. I can't put into words how angry and sad this made me.


I suppose we have quite different experiences with service, and the way we understand it.

the reason I brought up the whole issue of service as intrinsic to relationship (particularly love) was to highlight that it involves "action" and "reciprocation". Sometimes people entertain god as something formless and talk of loving god, but such statements are meaningless, just like to talk of loving the sky or universe is meaningless (maybe a better choice of word would be "awe" or something).
So when one talks of service to god, it doesn't mean the relationship is configured within quaint victorian concepts, but rather that there are issues of action and reciprocation.

 

[Myles]

I seem to remember that Spinoza said something like, " you can love Nature but don't expect it to love you back "

 

[greenberg]

the reason I brought up the whole issue of service as intrinsic to relationship (particularly love) was to highlight that it involves "action" and "reciprocation". Sometimes people entertain god as something formless and talk of loving god, but such statements are meaningless, just like to talk of loving the sky or universe is meaningless (maybe a better choice of word would be "awe" or something).

So when one talks of service to god, it doesn't mean the relationship is configured within quaint victorian concepts, but rather that there are issues of action and reciprocation.

- Does this mean that one has to see in relation to God every being and every action one does in regard to those beings; as well as see in relation to God every action done to oneself by other beings, whether this relation is one of affection or of disaffection?

That is, a person shows their service to God by serving other people? And when other people serve this person, this person regards this as them doing service to God?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I think I know enough about you from your posts to make some sort of judgement about your personal beliefs

.
1) You are incorrect.
2) You are about to launch an argument - with several false assumtions in it - based on personal experience. IOW that you have some sense of who I am.

For example, you claim that we all rely on personal experience much of the time. That is true when it comes to everyday matters because we have direct empirical experience to rely on. But when it comes to questions of whether God exists, what his attributes are and so on , you have nothing better to offer than assertions based on personal beliefs which you have arrived at for reasons best known to yourself.

I have never tried to prove that God exists. Above, here you are assuming that I have tried to make such a case. In fact I make it incredibly clear that I am not making an argument showing the existence of God and I have never tried to do this.

Your problem begins when you speak about your beliefs as if they had the support of empirical evidence, which is untrue.

Myles. I have not done this. You are not a careful reader. You make assumptions that are incorrect. I hope you have the integrity to admit this.

Our experience of gravity can be shared ; religious beliefs cannot other than with others of the same persuasion and, even then, because of the abstract language used it, it is not certain that two people are necessarily discussing the same thing. Hence the endflerss interchanges about what god might or might not want, what it means to be re-born and so on.

This is all beside the point.

You have overlooked the fact that my rtemarks were addressed to Grteenberg

Ah, yes. It was so similar to a post you made in another thread directed at me I had just read I thought you were at it again in relation to me. I notice above you have no problem doing the exact same thing again.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Life is for living !

In an earlier thread when I said 'talk like a human' you interpreted this very literally and wondered what other possibility there was. IOW of course you were talking like a human was your point.

Well, let me turn this literalness back on you Myles. Of course we are living. Even the 86 year old whom you feel superior to.

We are engaged in quite human activities.

I also still don't understand how exploring ideas the way we are here is somehow less living then your arguing against or mocking metaphysical speculation or discussion or spending time feeling superior to those who engage in such activities such as this 86 year old man.

Of course I understood that you meant life is for the living in a somewhat metaphorical sense. That there were other human activities that might be more satifying or are 'really what life is about'. I cannot for the life of me see how what you are doing, here at sciforums, has anything to do with that either.

All this seems rather relevent to the discussion at hand and on topic by the way. Given that you are an atheist.

It seems possible that a child in your household might feel pressured not to 'search' or 'meditate' or potentially lead what you seem to consider the wasted life of the 86 year old. This pressure might not resemble the kinds of pressure in a fundamentalist family, but unfortunately a wide variety of pressures function quite well to steer children.

 

[scorpius]

Originally Posted by Repo Man
"Their" version is based on observed facts, and the best evidence that is available at this time. Not on dogmatic creation myths that date from thousands of years ago when it was common knowledge that diseases were caused by evil spirits, and lightning was used by god to punish the unrighteous.

And your point is...?

his point is;
one is reality and one(religion) is myths/fantasy/BS!!

or do you think all these gods/religions are real,...the truth
www.godchecker.com

 

[scorpius]

I seem to remember that Spinoza said something like, " you can love Nature but don't expect it to love you back "

hmmm,
would you say that humans and animals are part of nature?

so if you feed them and treat them right I think you can expect to be loved back!

can you say the same about gods?

 

[spidergoat]

Nature will kill you as uncaringly as it wiped out the dinosaurs.

 

[Enmos]

Nature will kill you as uncaringly as it wiped out the dinosaurs.

Exactly, awe-inspiring. I'd pick nature over any God.. lol

 

[Myles]

In an earlier thread when I said 'talk like a human' you interpreted this very literally and wondered what other possibility there was. IOW of course you were talking like a human was your point.

Well, let me turn this literalness back on you Myles. Of course we are living. Even the 86 year old whom you feel superior to.

We are engaged in quite human activities.

I also still don't understand how exploring ideas the way we are here is somehow less living then your arguing against or mocking metaphysical speculation or discussion or spending time feeling superior to those who engage in such activities such as this 86 year old man.

Of course I understood that you meant life is for the living in a somewhat metaphorical sense. That there were other human activities that might be more satifying or are 'really what life is about'. I cannot for the life of me see how what you are doing, here at sciforums, has anything to do with that either.

All this seems rather relevent to the discussion at hand and on topic by the way. Given that you are an atheist.

It seems possible that a child in your household might feel pressured not to 'search' or 'meditate' or potentially lead what you seem to consider the wasted life of the 86 year old. This pressure might not resemble the kinds of pressure in a fundamentalist family, but unfortunately a wide variety of pressures function quite well to steer children.

I apologize for yet agian confusing you with Greenberg. Freudian slip ?

When I say life is for living I say so because I have seen lots of people ( my younger son ) included searching for meaning to the extent that the search becomes an end in itself. I regard that as escapism, which is no big deal unless such people argue that their personal beliefs have some sort of universal validity.

Time and again I have asked such people how they expect to recognize the Truth when they find it , but I have yet to get a satisfactory answer. As I have previously said, I believe knowledge is based on empirical evidence, whereas religious beliefs of all kinds amount to no more than speculation.

Isn't that what the Age of Reason was all about ?

 

[Enmos]

I apologize for yet agian confusing you with Greenberg. Freudian slip ?

It very nearly happened to me as well a number of times
I wouldn't be surprised if it actually did happen a few times without me noticing it.
Sowhat and Green can, at times, be almost indistinguishable.. lol

 

[Myles]

hmmm,
would you say that humans and animals are part of nature?

so if you feed them and treat them right I think you can expect to be loved back!

can you say the same about gods?

Spinoza, as I understand him believed we are all part of a whole and that mankind has no special place, despite what we may think. He was attacked by Jews and Christians for his views.

I can feed a cow but it would be silly to say that it loved me. Feeding it will cause it to develop a reflex which I may regard as love but that is simply anthropomorphism.

I believe the same hold true for interactions between humans; a kind of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

The essential point Spinoza was making is that Nature is an uncaring process.

 

[lightgigantic]

- Does this mean that one has to see in relation to God every being and every action one does in regard to those beings; as well as see in relation to God every action done to oneself by other beings, whether this relation is one of affection or of disaffection?

That is, a person shows their service to God by serving other people? And when other people serve this person, this person regards this as them doing service to God?

the basic idea is that god is a person, just like you are a person and I am a person ... we all have individuality.
What makes god unique is that he has the strongest relationship with every individual ... which is a claim we cannot come close to equaling.
So a person who is on a platform where they are willing/capable of reciprocating with god is on a spiritual platform. Part of this platform will involve treating other living entities on a spiritual platform (ie not seeing others as ultimately a temporary bodily designation) ... which may include various humanitarian disciplines ... but it is not that mere service to humanity is service to god.
There is the analogy of watering a tree - the practical method is to water the root, since by watering the root the water is distributed to all the leaves. An impractical way would be to water the leaves individually. In the same way, by satisfying god, everyone is satisfied and by trying to satisfy everyone individually, hardly anyone is satisfied. I think modern models of godless humanitarian endeavors illustrate this clearly. (Like the UN for eg - as opposed to uniting nations it simply adds more flags out the front as countries fracture)

 

[(Q)]

the basic idea is that god is a person, just like you are a person and I am a person ...

Does the mean we are invisible and undetectable to god?

 

[greenberg]

the basic idea is that god is a person, just like you are a person and I am a person ... we all have individuality.
What makes god unique is that he has the strongest relationship with every individual ... which is a claim we cannot come close to equaling.
So a person who is on a platform where they are willing/capable of reciprocating with god is on a spiritual platform. Part of this platform will involve treating other living entities on a spiritual platform (ie not seeing others as ultimately a temporary bodily designation) ... which may include various humanitarian disciplines ... but it is not that mere service to humanity is service to god.
There is the analogy of watering a tree - the practical method is to water the root, since by watering the root the water is distributed to all the leaves. An impractical way would be to water the leaves individually. In the same way, by satisfying god, everyone is satisfied and by trying to satisfy everyone individually, hardly anyone is satisfied. I think modern models of godless humanitarian endeavors illustrate this clearly. (Like the UN for eg - as opposed to uniting nations it simply adds more flags out the front as countries fracture)

Ideally this is all fine - But who decides whether a particular action is an act of satisfying God, or not?
I see enormous potential for manipulation and abuse in such an outlook as you present above.

Some people claim and insist that they are acting in a manner to satisfy God, and if the recipients of their actions suffer in this, this is their problem.
There actually are people who comment on their actions "I am just doing what God told me to do".

Anyone can claim that what they do is an act of satisfying God -even if in this, I and others are hurt-, and who am I to disagree with someone who claims to know God, while I don't?

Perhaps my feeling hurt is just my selfishness and illusionary self speaking, no?
And that I have no right to leave situations and relationships that I find dissatisfying, or at least express my disagreement, as long as the other party claims they are acting to satisfy God and that I should act to satisfy God?

I was in a relationship once that I was very dissatisfied with and wanted to break up. The other person said You want God to love me less.
What should I have done? Stayed - because I certainly didn't want that God love anyone less?

 

[sniffy]

Greenberg. Anyone who says 'You want God to love me less' is trying to manipulate you. You do what feels right for you. You stated that you were unhappy with the relationship and wanted to break up. The other person was trying to control you into not breaking up by making you feel guilty. Classic manipulation. If the other person had said something like 'what can I do to help make this relationship work' or similar it would at least exhibit a healthy willingness to try to make things work. Even so you may still have wanted to break up had the relationship 'run its course' for you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ideally this is all fine - But who decides whether a particular action is an act of satisfying God, or not?
I see enormous potential for manipulation and abuse in such an outlook as you present above.

I agree its a common problem and the most common cause of deviation, either individually or collectively.
There are three authorities and ideally they should all form a consensus.
Guru (one's personal instructing spiritual master)
sadhu (the general history and/or indication of saintly persons)
and scripture

Some people claim and insist that they are acting in a manner to satisfy God, and if the recipients of their actions suffer in this, this is their problem.
There actually are people who comment on their actions "I am just doing what God told me to do".

then you can see how their actions fall in line with these three authorities

Anyone can claim that what they do is an act of satisfying God -even if in this, I and others are hurt-, and who am I to disagree with someone who claims to know God, while I don't?

Even persons who are on a platform of being directly conscious of god have the habit of being fully obedient to guru sadhu and scripture, just so they don't pave the way for misunderstanding by others. IOW even if a person is on a platform where they have the qualification to over-ride traditional convention, they will try and still be obedient to convention, simply because for the people in general to step out of convention is spiritual suicide (By against convention I mean adopting some practice that is at odds with the three authorities)

Perhaps my feeling hurt is just my selfishness and illusionary self speaking, no?
And that I have no right to leave situations and relationships that I find dissatisfying, or at least express my disagreement, as long as the other party claims they are acting to satisfy God and that I should act to satisfy God?

the idea is that there is very specific information about god, about how to have a relationship with god and varying levels of that relationship, so it becomes easy to spot anomalies, especially if one is a practitioner. For instance if you hear that a man regularly attacks his wife with reverse spinning heel kicks, that strikes you as an anomaly to a normal relationship (quite obviously). If one is also in a relationship however, there is a whole wealth of information that one can draw on (like say how two lovers, one driving and the other in the back seat, might play "eyes" with each other from the rear vision mirror in the car). In the same way, when one is actually familiar (by dint of experience) with what it means to be cultivating a relationship with god, there are a wealth of indications one can call upon that helps one distinguish from aspects of mere mundane religiosity/piety.

I was in a relationship once that I was very dissatisfied with and wanted to break up. The other person said You want God to love me less.
What should I have done? Stayed - because I certainly didn't want that God love anyone less?

Even though I don't know the details so much, it sounds kind of strange ..... God's love remains constant for us throughout our situations of liberation or conditioned existence - rather it is our love for god that we are hopefully trying to revitalize .... so I can't really understand how god could love on less, even if he was willing to work with your (apparent) desire
:shrug:

 

[greenberg]

I agree its a common problem and the most common cause of deviation, either individually or collectively.
There are three authorities and ideally they should all form a consensus.
Guru (one's personal instructing spiritual master)
sadhu (the general history and/or indication of saintly persons)
and scripture

then you can see how their actions fall in line with these three authorities

And if one doesn't have a guru nor much knowledge of scripture ...

There is a very real and practical problem when it comes to relationships between people of different religions, or when one party already is religious and the other isn't.

I have found that it is really bad if one has a very liberal or open-minded outlook on life, or if one doesn't have a clearly and thoroughly formulated philosophy/religion of one's own.

 

[lightgigantic]

And if one doesn't have a guru nor much knowledge of scripture ...

the less knowledge one has, the more prone one is to errors of judgement

There is a very real and practical problem when it comes to relationships between people of different religions, or when one party already is religious and the other isn't.

basically all religions work on identical principles, just like all sciences work on identical principles - there may be differences in details (like say between geology and biology) but the ethical practices are the same - IOW god is not a religious fanatic and spiritual life communicates on the platform of purity and not ecclesiastical hair splitting

I have found that it is really bad if one has a very liberal or open-minded outlook on life, or if one doesn't have a clearly and thoroughly formulated philosophy/religion of one's own.

A broad mind is only valuable if it is accompanied by a good sense of discrimination - otherwise indecision clouds the vision