Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[lightgigantic]

I always talk to Mormons when they come and talk to me on the street sometimes. They're actually missionaries from the US that have come here, learned our language and are preaching to people on the streets. Quite a feat.

At all times we have politely parted our ways agreeing that we all have our own beliefs. I haven't tried to disprove Mormonism to them, although I have a sportsman urge, because if I somehow shook their belief in the Mormon faith, they would be very miserable and far away from their home. And I don't wish anyone to feel miserable.

Then you are obviously a thoughtful person.

I can guess that most others deal with them indifferently (or worse).

 

[S.A.M.]

Dawkins doesn't preach hate and intolerance.

Thats your take on it. I suggest you read the forums/comments on his site sometime to feel the love.

edit: I have to say I just checked it just now after a long time and its cleaned up quite a bit. Nice.

I especially like this bit.

Re: As an atheist, how should I relate to theists?

Postby Ubiqiutous Che on Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:48 am
I've taken my view on relating to theists as an atheist from two Muslim guys.

...

...

...

Yeah. So that was a loaded statement. Carrying on.

I'll change the names around. Let's call them Fred and Steve.

A couple of years ago I ran into a new group of people through one of the girls I'm mates with. Fred was one of them. He was born in the middle east - I can't remember where exactly - and raised under Islam, but his family managed to leave the area when he was a boy on the grounds that they felt the area was getting too dangerous. New Zealand's pretty safe, so I guess that's why they wound up here.

Anyway, I spent some time hanging out with this group for a while. It was interesting. Mostly Hindus, one New Ager, two Muslims (Fred and one of the girls. We'll get to her later), and one Taoist. Then there was little old me, who was flirting with Buddhism at the time.

One day the girl I mentioned above brought along one of her Muslim friends, Steve. Steve had been born and raised a Hindu, but had converted to Islam. For those of you not in the know, a Hindu converting to Islam - or vice versa - is, well.... significant. One could go so far as to call it contentious.

On that day the group was sitting around and got onto the topic of religion. It was actually a pretty cool discussion - there was a strong emphasis on religious tolerance and understanding. The idea was basically "Let's all get along and agree where we agree, and let the rest slide. God's going to sort out who's right and wrong when we die, so let's just delegate that responsibility to Him and get along while we're all here."

Steve had actually been interesting to listen to. He knew a lot about religions, and had come to his decision to convert after a lot of soul searching. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing. And he was explaining a few of his interpretations of Islam. He was very adamant in his stance of condemning terrorist acts in the name of Allah, and called their actions non-Muslim. I'd never heard a Muslim speak so freely or emphatically about that sort of thing, so like I said, it was highly interesting.

Then the topic moved around, and Steve got a little contemptuous about Christianity. That sounds bad because he was a Muslim, but let me just emphasise that I myself have been contemptuous about Christianity in the past so I was something of a willing audience at the time. Steve spoke of an incident. He'd heard that there was a priest who had been condemning Islam in his Church sermons, so Steve sat in at the back of the Church one Sunday morning and waited for the Father (I think it was a Catholic priest) to start.

When the priest moved on to condemning Islam - as Steve tells it, the priest was fire and brimstone about it, all sin this and heathen that - Steve stood up at the back of the Church and basically ragged out the priest about his sermon. He gave us a few choice exerpts from what he said along with the priest's reactions. Can't remember what they were now, but he burned the priest pretty bad before storming out of the Church.

Here's the interesting bit: Fred blew up at Steve! They had a full on fight and argument right there in the lounge of the student rec. center (this was when I was at Uni).

Fred basically ripped into Steve on the grounds that Steve had gone out of his way to undermine the authority of a religious official that was doing his best for his congregation.

Steve countered that the priest had been bigoted and wrong and needed to be corrected.

Fred replied that, although he agreed that that was the case, doing so in the middle of a Communion sermon was neither the time or the place. That Communion was important to those members of the Church, and that Steve's actions had been the height of inappropriateness.

That sounds like a very genteel and intellectual disagreement, but they both got really worked up about it. I think that if we hadn't been in a public place it would have come to blows.

The moral of the story that I took away was this. Steve was actually a pretty cool guy. He was clever. He was educated. He knew his religions backwards - he knew more about Christianity than I did, and I went to Catholic primary and secondary schools, and he had a similar level of knowledge about Islam, Judaism, Hinduisim, and probably others. He was a passionate, eloquent speaker. He was very concerned about human rights and religious tolerance.

Yet despite all of this, when he went out of his way to interrupt a relgious service that he justifiably disagreed with he was in the wrong. It was neither the time nor the place for his arguments or his knowledge. Fred had a point.

Oddly enough, Fred was backed up by something I heard the Dalai Llama say when he visited New Zealand a little while ago. I can't remember his exact words, but he spoke a brief warning to those members of his audience from other faiths. Something along the lines of: "Buddhist philosophy can be very different to religion in the West. Your religion is important. It gives you happiness to have faith, yes? <happy chuckle> So if Buddhist philosophy is different, it might undermine your faith, your happiness. Very distressing. Very sad. Not the compassionate thing to do! So it is important to be strong in your faith, be happy. Very important. So if my talk on Buddhisim is upsetting, just say, 'Oh, he is wrong, just a silly monk, I'll ignore him.' <happy chuckle> That is the right way to listen to my talk. It's not something very important. <happy chuckle>"

I think that, as a rule, we atheists can sometimes be as guilty as Steve of pushing our views when it isn't appropriate. It's one thing to speak our minds openly and freely in a public forum. It's another thing altogether to push our unwanted views on others, because no matter how righteous our intentions are we would be causing them undue distress and harm.

So this is my approach. If I feel the urge to speak to a theist about my views on theisim - usually when a theist is trying to convert me - I tell them up front that I'm an atheist and ask their permission to have an open discussion about our conflicting views. Sometimes the theist will be happy to have the discussion, and the two of you can actually have a very pleasant discussion when openly trying to convert eachother by remembering that disagreement doesn't have to mean disrespect.

But most of the time the theist will back off, and that's their right. Plus it solves the annoyance of them trying to convert you.

Occasionally the theist will refuse to let you speak your views, but won't shut up about theirs. In all fairness, this has only happened to me a few times. I think theists in New Zealand are a bit more moderate than theists in America. Anyway, my reccomended response is to just walk away from the discussion. A surprisingly satisfying showstopper is: "I thank you for your concern, but I'm not interested in becoming a Christian. This conversation is over."

Good to know not everyone is a rabid maniac

 

[iceaura]

Do atheists give their children exposure to theism?

Offer them the choice to believe in God?

Any athiests with theist children here?

Kind of reminds me of Bill O'Reilly's sense of wonderment at discovering black people at a restaurant had table manners.

Athiests in the US would have to lock their children in the basement without a television to prevent them from being exposed to all kinds of theistic beliefs, often pressed on them by adults without parental consent or supervision.

This contrasts with most theists in the US, who regard exposure to overt atheistic thought as a corrupting influence that children should not be subjected to until they are "old enough" to handle the situation.

A lot of atheists in the US are well-educated, and essentially all well-educated people wish their children to be well-educated in the predominant Western culture of their homeland, and so of course these children would have therefore read at least a fair amount of the Bible in the King James translation. Among my own acquaintances, the childhood atheists have read more of the Bible than the childhood Catholics have, on average. As Gregory Bateson's father put it, he was not about to raise an ignoramus - theists don't seem to worry about that as much.

My guess is you would find most children of atheists to be somewhat better informed about the formal creeds and beliefs of particular theisms they do not themselves espouse than theists' children are about particular theistic belief systems they do not themselves espouse.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

How many people are harassed for being well educated do you think?

Vs those harassed for looking a certain way?

Did you really not understand how the post of yours I responded to came across?

It seemed to be saying that it was silly to have your brother be accused of being a terrorist, him being so well educated. Perhaps you did not mean that, hence your strange response here.

 

[James R]

Thats your take on it. I suggest you read the forums/comments on his site sometime to feel the love.

Dawkins doesn't speak for everybody who posts a comment on his website - obviously. To say he does is like saying that Osama bin Laden speaks for all Muslims.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Is there any athiest here who has participated in a religious festival or event with a thiest as a child?

American kids have to rebel against their parents, and the best way to outrage my atheist parents was to have a Catholic girlfriend in high school and the first couple of years of college. I went to a couple of church festivals with her, and to a church service once. The festivals were as entertaining as any festivals, the service was as boring as any service. (I've been to two or three since then.)

I was joking. But it might be true in the US. I hear popular society is scared shitless from anyone proclaiming they're Muslim. Just rumours though.

A great many Americans are:

• Scared of Muslims because of 9/11,
• Repulsed by Muslims because of their intolerance for free speech: the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the killing of Theo Van Gogh, and the reaction to the cartoons,
• Disgusted by Muslims over the way cab drivers in Minneapolis treat airline passengers with liquor in their luggage, and in NYC the way they treat blind people with guide dogs,
• Sick and tired of Muslims after the electronically amplified prayer calls began traumatizing Dearborn five times every single day,
• Horrified at Muslims after the textbooks in the Islamic schools in Virginia were translated and found to contain passages about Christian neighbors being inferior, but
• Still amazed by Muslims after that goofy broad in England tried to go to court in her ninja-bandit outfit when the law gives every defendant the right to "confront his accuser."

pre-9-11 nobody (apart from muslims of course) gave a damn about islam.

That was true in the USA for a long time. We had sort of a romantic ignorance about the Middle East and nobody even knew what Islam was, or as we called it then, "Mohammedanism." But when Iran seized the U.S. embassy in 1979, all of that changed. There has been a steady buildup of anti-Islam sentiment in this country for thirty years. It is exacerbated by America's knee-jerk support of Israel and reflexive antipathy toward Palestinians, and of course by the Rushdie fatwa. I had a friend who immigrated from Iran and was married to a Euro-American wife. For years, everywhere they went, he had to break the ice by saying, "She's my own private hostage."

 

[lightgigantic]

Fraggle

A great many Americans are:

* Scared of Muslims because of 9/11,
* Repulsed by Muslims because of their intolerance for free speech: the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the killing of Theo Van Gogh, and the reaction to the cartoons,
* Disgusted by Muslims over the way cab drivers in Minneapolis treat airline passengers with liquor in their luggage, and in NYC the way they treat blind people with guide dogs,
* Sick and tired of Muslims after the electronically amplified prayer calls began traumatizing Dearborn five times every single day,
* Horrified at Muslims after the textbooks in the Islamic schools in Virginia were translated and found to contain passages about Christian neighbors being inferior, but
* Still amazed by Muslims after that goofy broad in England tried to go to court in her ninja-bandit outfit when the law gives every defendant the right to "confront his accuser."

A great many americans are not even up to date/aware with these events and simply digest whatever image is given on the media. (lovely adjectives BTW)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
pre-9-11 nobody (apart from muslims of course) gave a damn about islam.
”
That was true in the USA for a long time. We had sort of a romantic ignorance about the Middle East and nobody even knew what Islam was, or as we called it then, "Mohammedanism." But when Iran seized the U.S. embassy in 1979, all of that changed. There has been a steady buildup of anti-Islam sentiment in this country for thirty years. It is exacerbated by America's knee-jerk support of Israel and reflexive antipathy toward Palestinians, and of course by the Rushdie fatwa. I had a friend who immigrated from Iran and was married to a Euro-American wife. For years, everywhere they went, he had to break the ice by saying, "She's my own private hostage."

I kind of picked up on that bit in bold too.

Pre 9-11 it was political (the offenders to US dignity simply happened to be muslim)
Now it is cultural (the offenders to US dignity are muslim)

 

[S.A.M.]

A great many Americans are:

• Scared of Muslims because of 9/11,
• Repulsed by Muslims because of their intolerance for free speech: the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the killing of Theo Van Gogh, and the reaction to the cartoons,
• Disgusted by Muslims over the way cab drivers in Minneapolis treat airline passengers with liquor in their luggage, and in NYC the way they treat blind people with guide dogs,
• Sick and tired of Muslims after the electronically amplified prayer calls began traumatizing Dearborn five times every single day,
• Horrified at Muslims after the textbooks in the Islamic schools in Virginia were translated and found to contain passages about Christian neighbors being inferior, but
• Still amazed by Muslims after that goofy broad in England tried to go to court in her ninja-bandit outfit when the law gives every defendant the right to "confront his accuser."

That was true in the USA for a long time. We had sort of a romantic ignorance about the Middle East and nobody even knew what Islam was, or as we called it then, "Mohammedanism." But when Iran seized the U.S. embassy in 1979, all of that changed. There has been a steady buildup of anti-Islam sentiment in this country for thirty years. It is exacerbated by America's knee-jerk support of Israel and reflexive antipathy toward Palestinians, and of course by the Rushdie fatwa. I had a friend who immigrated from Iran and was married to a Euro-American wife. For years, everywhere they went, he had to break the ice by saying, "She's my own private hostage."

Do any of these Americans ever ponder on US policies worldwide and especially in the Middle East and Iran?

Here is an interesting article I came across, from, of all things, an ex-CIA:

Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says
Former CIA official, now an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, argues that a 9/11-type attack would have been likely anyway

 

[S.A.M.]

Dawkins doesn't speak for everybody who posts a comment on his website - obviously. To say he does is like saying that Osama bin Laden speaks for all Muslims.

Does Islamic fundamentalism cover it? How about Islamic terrorism? Islamists? Muslim terrorist?

Do the people who post there see Dawkins as an inspiration? Or is that quality only restricted to Islamic jihadists?

 

[James R]

Does Islamic fundamentalism cover it? How about Islamic terrorism? Islamists? Muslim terrorist?

I don't know what you're getting at, again.

Do the people who post there see Dawkins as an inspiration?

From what I've seen there, some do. The site attracts like-minded thinkers, a "fan base" and also people who think Dawkins is flat-out wrong about practically everything. There are some healthy debates there. There are some fawning fans who probably don't think too much (although Dawkins isn't exactly the kind of figure likely to attract the brain-dead).

And your point is... ?

 

[spidergoat]

When you start to believe firmly in things based only on faith rather than evidence, the difference between a moderate and an extremist is significant only in it's outward effects. The same suspension of skepticism is required.

 

[tresbien]

]

Alienation cuts both ways
By Emad Mekay

CAIRO - "Why do they hate us?" Last September, this question reverberated through US society and media as they pondered the horrific terrorist attacks attributed to Islamist extremists. In this ancient city, Arabs and Muslims ask the same question - only here, "they" refers to the West.

There is no lack of evidence, they say, that it is the West that hates Muslims, Arabs and Middle Easterners rather than the other way around.

"One way of finding out who hates who is simply by finding out who initiates those acts of hatred and for how long," says Anas Fodah, a journalist with bab.com, a popular Arab-language news and analysis site. "Take Samuel Huntington's book on the clash of civilizations," says Fodah. "Huntington started the provocative thought in the West and not here. Muslims did not fabricate the sheer thought nor did they subscribe to it."

Fodah also draws similar conclusions from the example of several Muslim and non-Muslim writers who composed anti-Muslim books and received a hero's welcome in Western capitals despite the anger of the Muslim world. Salman Rushdie, whose book Satanic Verses was deemed offensive to Muslim feelings in different parts of the world, was hailed for his literary conquest. Likewise, Taslima Nasreen of Bangladesh and Egyptian writer Nasr Hamid Abuzeid questioned the divinity of the Koran, the Muslim holy book.

Commentators here also recall that Nobel laureate V S Naipaul's Among the Believers, with its description - considered contentious here - of travels through Muslim societies, was praised by the right-wing US publication The New Republic, notorious here for its anti-Arab stances, as "the most notable work on contemporary Islam to have appeared in a very long time".

Dozens of publications and statements issued since September 11 have led many writers here to conclude that Western hostility to Muslims is now bare-faced and on the increase. "The vicious campaign against Islam in the Western media is becoming increasingly ferocious," writes prominent Egyptian poet Farouq Gewida in the widely circulated Egyptian daily al-Ahram. "It's even becoming ruder and ruder, starting with falsifying verses of the Koran on websites to poisonous pictures against Islam in the Western press."

Internet sites that originate in the West routinely make fun of the Koran, much to the dismay of even non-religious Muslims. In one recent example, a site swapped words from the Muslim holy book with swear words and presented itself as the true version of the 14-century-old book. Among incidents that are driving the message home that the West "harbors animosity to Muslims" is the recent decision by Malaysia and Bangladesh, among others, to ban an edition of Newsweek that displayed a picture of the Prophet Mohammed. Even at their most well-meant, depictions of prophets are considered idolatry and therefore unacceptable.

Adding insult to injury, many media commentators here have said, US media, in particular, are showing insensitivity to Islam and Arabs even as they shirk their duty to participate in a debate at home over the future of the US administration's self-proclaimed "war against terrorism". Commentators and the public alike have been flabbergasted at how, in their view, Western media trumpet fairness and accuracy even as they try to pass off white Westerners as experts on Islam and Muslim societies while ignoring scholars in the Muslim world who could give a more representative interpretation of Islam in general and the militant groups in particular.

Gewida says that on a more personal level, while many Muslims have had no problem giving their daughters Western names such as Cindy or Nancy, Muslim names such as Zainab, the name of the Prophet Mohammed's daughter, or Khadija never seem to be considered in Western families. "The Muslim man who lives by the riverside has called his daughter Mary and his son Mosa [Moses]," Gewida said. "This simple Muslim man, who never reads the Western press or listens to its poisonous calls against Islam, still respects other people's faiths."

Numerous individuals say daily - in interviews, overheard conversations, and letters to the media or websites - that they now perceive the hatred as emanating not only from Western media but also from ordinary people in the West. Usama Soltan, a doctoral student, says that when he enters chat rooms on the Internet, "I hear all sorts of vulgar language about us now. One day there was this guy and he wrote all sorts of f-- language about us in a chat room, things I can't describe."

It does not help that intellectuals and media commentators seen here as eminent in the United States issue statements and characterizations that come across as confrontational. They include Chris Matthews, of MSNBC television, Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis, and evangelist Franklin Graham. Lewis appears undaunted in holding aloft verses of the Koran and claiming these endorse violence against non-Muslims and maintains that terrorism is part of a long struggle between Islam and the West. Meanwhile, Graham blames Islam itself for violence and condemns it as "an evil and wicked religion".

"Anti-Western statements came in an isolated manner and from pariahs like [Osama] bin Laden and militant groups," says Fodah. "And even in these cases, the militants only condemned some American foreign policy actions, not their society. They wanted to enjoy the freedom in America and the West." The difference, according to Fodah, is that "in the West, the antagonism is more mainstream: the media, intellectuals, books and politicians. The real question is not who hates who. It is in fact why the West hates us so much."
http://www.atimes.com/front/DB28Aa02.html

 

[Tiassa]

Just what does one call "fair"?

Let us take today as a comparison. I'm not an atheist, but the rule I can't get anyone to respect is that my daughter's religious decisions should be her own.

She stayed at her cousin's on Saturday night, went to church on Easter morning. As far as I am informed, this is her first trip to a church service. She even knelt, I'm told, for the pastor's blessing at the communion rail.

It's not like she doesn't have exposure to religion. On the other side of the family, her maternal grandparents "don't preach to her". They simply surround her with as much religious material as they can.

When we got to another cousin's house for the Easter egg hunt—also, as I understand it, my daughter's first—everyone was talking about how cute little N was, running around the house proclaiming, "He is risen!"

One of my cousins married a Jewish man who has fallen away from faith. But he went to church like he does every Sunday to make his wife happy.

All of this on one side of my family. In the course of less than twenty-four hours.

The question is whether the "failure to indoctrinate a child into a religious belief" counts as "indoctrination into atheism".

Aside from that, everyone is indoctrinated into a belief system.

• • •​

A curious proposition that starts before my daughter was born. Her mother made a point of telling me that our daughter would never go to a Jesuit school. For her it's a tit-for-tat thing. On the one hand, the religious schools her parents sent her to were dismal failures. To the other, though, she grew up in a very anti-Catholic environment. Proactively hateful. She doesn't see the difference, though. The schools she went to screwed her up with bad religion and even worse education. My school was a Jesuit school. Not a big deal. In fact I only mention it because it came up again recently. We were discussing daycare and for some reason, her mother wanted to put her into a Seventh-Day Adventist program. She couldn't understand why I would object to a church culture of which she refers to herself as an "escapee".

Talk about Stockholm syndrome.

And we were standing in a parking lot having this argument. And for some reason, she brought up the Jesuit school. "Since she can't avoid it in the world, anyway, I'd rather she do it now instead of going to your high school when she can't defend herself."

Even now, I can't believe she actually said it. It makes no sense to me. Philosophically or practically.

Jesuit school is where I learned to fight back. But that's beside the point.

Indoctrinated? Watch a not-quite five year-old run around proclaiming, "He is risen! He is risen!"

Can't defend herself?

Watch a not-quite five year-old run around proclaiming, "He is risen! He is risen!"

Try this phrase and tell me how it tastes:

"I want my child's first formal education experience to be the pretense that a faery tale is true. Specifically, I want it to be faery tale that demands belief at the threat of eternal rejection and condemnation."​

Better yet, and obviously spun from the tale above:

"I want my child's first formal education experience to be teaching of Christianity as if it was true, because if we wait too long, she might be able to defend herself."​

Offer her the choice to believe in God? What the f— ...?

• • •​

I just want to consider whether or not everyone is familiar with a concept:

"In order to be fair, I must give you what you refuse to give others."​

Many of us have looked out at the world around us and wondered why we felt that way. It can be very easy to find a variation on that theme in our more passionate disagreements here at Sciforums.

Offer her a choice? What does that mean, "offer her a choice"?

"Honey, I want you to take some time to believe this faery tale that tells you that you have to believe it or else be punished because I want to know if you, for some reason, want to believe it."​

Does that mean I can offer her witchcraft and Buddhism—two religions with considerably lesser degrees of emotional and psychological exploitation—or do I have to include a redemptive monotheism in order to be "fair"?

• • •​

My brother reminds, "We survived. And we're okay."

Well, okay. Point. Sort of.

We're okay. That's a curious proposition considering one of us is damn near crazy, and the other seems a closet nihilist. Now, I absolutely cannot say that religion is to blame for this outcome. Racism probably wins that derby by a country mile, which is the strangest thing since most of our friends think of us as white. But that's all beside the point, too.

Religion, though, didn't help. And we were lucky, by comparison. The effects we suffered arose from a nominally Christian environment. We were expected, at some level, to believe in God. And that puts all the strangeness about religion in a whole different light. From the hypersensitive (PMRC) to the shameless (televangelists) to the neurotic zealots (hatemongers/political evangelicals), it's amazing how much one will put up with once they "believe". Anthrax's "Startin' Up A Posse", released in 1991, finally put the hypersensitive in perspective: it was impossible to take these people seriously. I was eighteen. I mean, any song with "Motherfucker, motherfuck!" and "Cunty-cunty-cunty-cunt!" as backup ensemble vocals .... It was over.

But it never should have had to be like that. What's wrong with hearing something coming out of someone's mouth and knowing it's bullshit? Well, the answer is because they are a "Christian" and therefore deserve some sort of special consideration. A whole generation is learning all sorts of strange shit in that context.

Hell, think of the central tenet of Christianity: You ought to be ashamed of yourself for even existing.

I mean, come on. No wonder they're afraid of the day the kids can defend themselves. Tell that to any reasonably developed psyche and, at best, you'll be laughed at.

Of course, maybe that's why we all need Jesus.

You know. Had to throw that in. Just to be ... uh ... fair

 

[pjdude1219]

I would indoctrinate my children into atheism, by simply not telling them that if they do bad things, they will go to hell. I would avoiding scaring them with nightmarish scenerios of Satan and his demons and I would explain that witches aren't real.

um witches are real

 

[phlogistician]

You're in this thread aren't you?

What are you doing here?

I am correcting your twisted terminology, not accepting the loaded terms of debate. Atheism is not a belief system, therefore it is impossible to be indoctrinated into something that does not exist. IF you had the grace to word it differently, like 'DO atheist parents encourage their children to become atheists too' that would be a different matter, but you are too warped to ask an honest question.

 

[Avatar]

I am correcting your twisted terminology, not accepting the loaded terms of debate. Atheism is not a belief system, therefore it is impossible to be indoctrinated into something that does not exist. IF you had the grace to word it differently, like 'DO atheist parents encourage their children to become atheists too' that would be a different matter, but you are too warped to ask an honest question.

Yeah, I think it has been pointed out to Sam by just about everybody here, except tresbien who's muslim.

 

[tresbien]

am i welcomed among you

 

[S.A.M.]

I am correcting your twisted terminology, not accepting the loaded terms of debate. Atheism is not a belief system, therefore it is impossible to be indoctrinated into something that does not exist. IF you had the grace to word it differently, like 'DO atheist parents encourage their children to become atheists too' that would be a different matter, but you are too warped to ask an honest question.

Its unfalsifiable and hence categorised as a belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

And I'm using the terminology that athiests are familiar with. Although I should have said "do athiests indoctrinate their children into the cult of their belief system?" to be accurate.

As anyone can see from reading this thread, they do expect their children to learn their religious leanings.

I don't know what you're getting at, again.

All terrorists (that we hear about) are Muslims, hence all Muslims are terrorists.

From what I've seen there, some do. The site attracts like-minded thinkers,

Yeah sorta like the internet jihadists everyone keeps moaning about.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Most atheists I know don't try and put anything in their children's heads. They want them to make up their own minds when old enough.

 

[John99]

What i cannot understand is why there is a need for people to classify themselves as Atheist. Isnt everyone Agnostic?