Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

I fail to see the comparison... :shrug:


edit: Time to go home...See ya tomorrow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But it did make a powerful symbol. And maybe that girl made up her mind on her own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James, James, James!

You're right!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

For one, you cannot really teach a child atheism. We are all born atheists, as we have no inherent gnosis of deity, divinity, or related concepts.

Secondly, yes, atheist parents generally give their children exposure to other religions, and the freedom to choose, and also expose them to agnosticism and other theological positions. This allows the child to find their own path to tread.

For example: my mother and father are both atheistic agnostics, and they do not mind at all that fact that I have chosen a religion. They don't mind, because they know I am intelligent and I have thought this all out carefully, logically, and rationally.

Unlike those born and raised into religion, they and I are open-minded, as we have no delusions of absolute certainty on matters of theology and philosophy.

 

and you and they would have no certainty that their child rearing choices were good ones.

 

Neither of my parents are religious. I'd describe them as atheists as in, they don't believe in a deity or any of that crap. Not any of that obsessive Q level garbage.

I wasn't raged religious, nor was I really "exposed to religion". I more exposed religion to myself, reading about it and stuff. When I was young, we did go to Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim temples in SE Asia, but that was more like a touristy thing than an actual "oh hey, maybe these people's crazy made up mythologies have meaning and you should totally buy into them."

 

Maybe. I think that allowing a child to choose, because the parents recognise there is no certainty in any religious view they might want to teach, allows for a more open-minded household and a more cohesive family unit, regardless of individual religion or lack thereof, because it allows them each to find the path that suits them.

 

It most certainly is, both metaphysically and practically. Atheism is a point on a scale of belief, as Dawkins himself illustrates when he cites studies relating IQ and education to religious observance. It cannot be debated in all seriousness when the high priest of naturalistic atheism implicitly accepts that atheism and theism are points on the same scale. It would be exactly akin to me telling you that large size is not really size. It is different than size, somehow; a separate category rather than a quantitative measure of different units on the same axis.

They most certainly do. Indoctrination of belief - of any belief without likely evidence to support its conclusion - is still indoctrination. My father may not have had any reason to accept God, but he still had no evidence to reject God (as the null hypothesis) either. You seem to be under the impression that the evidence falls on one side or another of a hypothesis, or that it can be tested, so that atheists are in effect saying "Ho: The natural evidence does not support God, so there is no God" as a falsification of the H1 hypthesis: "H1: The natural evidence supports God, so there is God". Yet far from being a testable system, it is an inherently unresolvable one, and best described more circumspectly from behind NOMA.

Geoff

 

Does it also mention that sarcasm is the "lowest form of wit" (Wilde)?

Actually, I thought that was to me. Of course, I'm already familiar with the terrible crimes of atheism.

Oddly enough, I've seen bowls of water, pine branches, palm fronds and even actual sheep in a church, but never smoke and mirrors as an allegory for religion. Maybe smoke and mirrors refers to the intellectual slight-of-hand required in making a bad allusion, rather than illusion.

Best

Geoff

 

Out of interest Sam, given that 'child abuse' has been brought up, what do you think of religious parents putting their children through certain religious practices, (eg circumcision)?

Would you qualify this as child abuse and at what level does a religious practice become abuse?

 

My own brother was circumcised after he reached maturity (15 years old I think), not a pleasant experience but with consent.

However, my own ears and nose were pierced before I was one year old. I've always complained that was sexual discrimination. (I hate nose studs, makes me feel like a cow with a ring in her nostril)

Like breast implants and botox injections I think choice should be left upto the people. Now my brother is half seriously considering Judaism (still work in progress) it may be good for him he's already snipped.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

These are lies, right Sam? There isn't a word of truth in anything you say.

 

Nonsense. Where can anyone find certainty ? It's always possible for some prat using hindsight to say " well, how do you know you couldn't have done better? " That is a totally meaningless statement

 

I agree with that. I think parenting is the most difficult thing to do, that too without a training manual. Most people, IMO, do the best they can, within the limitations of their knowledge and experience. Its a pointless exercise to look back, I agree, but its definitely necessary to move forward, instead of repeating the same pattens of behaviour.

I find the last is very difficult. I myself tend to slip back into unproductive patterns of old behaviour with my parents so I can understand how difficult it is for them too, to avoid the same pitfalls.

Do you ever find yourself facing such quandaries?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The fact that Wilde was quoting the bible doesn't mean he was right.

Have you read about those atheists who tortured aand burned people for the good of their non-souls. That's inevitable when people abandon religion, without which there is no possibility of moral behaviour.

So you have never seen mirrors in church, Well, you must have heard of them if you were paying attention. Paul saw things through a glass darkly. it is commonly believed it was through the bottom of a wine glass, which makes sense in light of his ranting.

The sheep you saw should be no surprise; they were members of the flock hearing the alleged words of the Good Shepherd. I have seen nothing but sheep in church.

 

How can you know that, you're not a parent? Can you even respond without having the slightest inkling of what you're talking about? [/QUOTE]

 

Depends on what definition of atheism you use really.
Me? I like webster:

So, although atheism might not be a belief system, a person can be indoctrinated in atheism.

Good enough for a thread title. We don't have very high standards for those here, besides it could just be a way to attract attention.

p.s. Besides there is a thread on SAM in OG - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79046

 

How do you define "a doctrine that there is no deity" as "not a belief system"?

Can you be "indoctrinated" in something that is not a belief?

Glad to see that someone here uses a dictionary.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!