Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[(Q)]

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

Try again.

Jan.

I don't need to try again Jan, there are dictionaries available. It doesn't matter though, you provided exactly the same thing I did. The fact that you added in one adjective does not change the definition in the least.

Your intellectual dishonesty is more evidence to suggest that theists will openly lie to demonstrate their point, most likely due to the childhood indoctrination they received.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

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

Been there, done that.

It's not that there are no differences. It's that, for the most part, members of both groups are nuts.

 

[Varda]

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.

The drastic difference in method is in presenting things as proposals and points of view, rather than presenting them as FACTS, which would be caracterized as indoctrination

telling a chidren:

there is no proof that there is a god

is different than telling him:

there is no god

 

[greenberg]

The drastic difference in method is in presenting things as proposals and points of view, rather than presenting them as FACTS, which would be caracterized as indoctrination

telling a chidren:

there is no proof that there is a god

is different than telling him:

there is no god

Yes, and a five-year old really can do so much with a reply like "there is no proof that there is a god"!!

 

[superluminal]

What would a precocious five-year old make of a world where the vast majority of people believe in something that's literally never been shown to exist? The only evidence we have is the subjective experiences and writings of a relatively very few people.

What do you all honestly think the response would be?

 

[greenberg]

What would a precocious five-year old make of a world where the vast majority of people believe in something that's literally never been shown to exist? The only evidence we have is the subjective experiences and writings of a relatively very few people.

What do you all honestly think the response would be?

The child probably wouldn't care much, as long as it would be loved by its parents and love its parents.

 

[Myles]

The child probably wouldn't care much, as long as it would be loved by its parents and love its parents.

You'll never get it, will you ? When my children asked about God I told them that some people believe. some don't and others are unsure. When asked what I believed I said I could find no reason to believe in the God believed in by religious people. I suggested they they wait till they were older and then make their own minds up because I might be wrong.

So that's indoctrination ? I call it education. You seem to believe that everyone has an agenda and that there's no room for a middle way. You are wrong.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

I don't need to try again Jan, there are dictionaries available. It doesn't matter though, you provided exactly the same thing I did. The fact that you added in one adjective does not change the definition in the least.

Actually, looking at most dictionary definitions, it is shocking to find that they, like you, describe religion the same way they describe theism. I find it disgusting how dictionaries change definitions (seemingly like seasons).
Here is a more accurate understanding of the two positions;

http://atheism.about.com/od/religionnonreligion/a/theism.htm

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

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.

LOL!

Now you are saying you do not understand it [bible].

What blatent dishonesty.

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.

Is this how you justify your fanaticism? Create a false situation (i.e conveniently miss out words like "not fully"), then use that false situation to score points, then put your fingers in your ears shouting la! la! la! at the top of your voice, so you cannot hear when you are being corrected?
And could it be that your assumption about me, namely, not having an oringal thought, is really about you?

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.

If I said atheists, then I apologise, I meant fanatical atheists like yourself.
How could you know how my mind works, it's not in agreement with yours?

I believe in the supremacy of reason, which is what sets us apart from other animals.

When are you going to actually use it? when it comes to discussing God, and spiritual matters, your mind becomes a blunt object, not at all prepared to discuss God in the one manner He is described in every major scripture. Choosing instead, to stick to a made up character more in tune with with your ideal.
If your going to discuss God, then discuss God with the full authority, and aspects, as described (don't worry you won't have to believe in Him).
Don't just cherry pick the bits that suit you.

Why do you think the God you believe in gave us reason, if we are to abandon it when it comes to religious belief?

Another assumption? Gosh, is there no end to your blantency.

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.

I have already stated this (pull your finger out), and see no reason to repeat.
You haven't yet produced a decent conversation, yet you are adament in your complete dislike of anything religious, what else could be the fuel to that, if not emotion.

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

I've already done that. Go back and read.

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

I find your whole premise dishonest, I would have more trouble trying to find honesty when you are discussing religion, although to be fair, there is some.

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

Why do you regard the bible as pieces of crap?

Jan.

 

[Varda]

Yes, and a five-year old really can do so much with a reply like "there is no proof that there is a god"!!

you strongly underestimate five-year olds

 

[Myles]

You have used lots of words without addressing the issue. You are condemned out of your own mouth. I doubt you can see the futility of your stance but that's your problem.

 

[Jan Ardena]

superluminal

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 are straight-off-the-bat wrong. Theism is a belief in God, some theists may ask you to accept their beliefs, those who are card-carrying religionists, and they are usually somehow asociated with wester culture, which in itself has a history of forcing others into their ideology (not necessarily religious).

You chose to believe. Don't take nonbelievers to task for asking for a bit of logic and evidence to support your claims,

Okay, let's be reasonable. You are talking to me, not christianity, islam, or any other religious institute. I claim to believe in God, why do I need evidence to support my claim?

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

No I don't know what you mean by religion and theism is the same thing.
If you cannot even be bothered to distinguish between the two, then why bother to post. That means no matter what, you believe youR view is the only one, and have no need to understand anything else. That is the mindset of the fanatic, IMO.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

you strongly underestimate five-year olds

The only reservation is that they must have a modicum of intelligence.

 

[(Q)]

Okay, let's be reasonable. I claim to believe in God, why do I need evidence to support my claim?

The claim is valid. You do believe in gods. You've provided boatloads of evidence to support it.

It's the 'belief' itself that is being questioned.

No I don't know what you mean by religion and theism is the same thing.

Quite simply Jan, they are the same thing, a belief in gods. From your point of view, the details of belief are important as that is what makes your beliefs personal to you. From our point of view, they are the belief in the invisible and undetectable; the nonexistent.

It's like quibbling over whether or not unicorns are colored pink or salmon.

 

[Varda]

The only reservation is that they must have a modicum of intelligence.

let's consider the average kid for discussion purposes

 

[superluminal]

Okay, let's be reasonable. You are talking to me, not christianity, islam, or any other religious institute. I claim to believe in God, why do I need evidence to support my claim?

Ok then. I know and fully accept that you believe in god. You need provide no evidence for such a thing.

So, what are we talking about then. Indoctrination of children. Righto.

Ok. I've already acknowledged that we all indoctrinate to some degree. One is a doctrine of free thought and valid skepticism vs one based on pure acceptance of complete hearsay.

Correct? Can the former then even be considered "indoctrination"? Logically, no.

If you have more than a belief and hearsay to offer your children regarding god(s), then let's hear it.

 

[Myles]

let's consider the average kid for discussion purposes

An average kid will fall in the middle of the curve, so no problem there.

 

[Varda]

An average kid will fall in the middle of the curve, so no problem there.

an average kid is perfectly capable of understanding when you talk to them like you did in post #807

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ok then. I know and fully accept that you believe in god. You need provide no evidence for such a thing.

So, what are we talking about then. Indoctrination of children. Righto.

Ok. I've already acknowledged that we all indoctrinate to some degree. One is a doctrine of free thought and valid skepticism vs one based on pure acceptance of complete hearsay.

Correct? Can the former then even be considered "indoctrination"? Logically, no.

If you have more than a belief and hearsay to offer your children regarding god(s), then let's hear it.

I'm not sure how you are percieving things here.
Explain "free thought and valid skepticism", and how it doesn't apply in a theist household?
And what grounds do you accuse theism as pure acceptance of complete hearsay?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

It's the 'belief' itself that is being questioned.

Why do you need to question my belief?

Jan.