U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-02-2014, 07:30 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,289,313 times
Reputation: 2973

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
But that's not what they said...
It is what they are SAYING. When I say "There are no monsters under the bed" or "There is no god" that is what I am saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
So they can get some sleep at night. Once again, I never said parents shouldn't indoctrinate their kids with anything, just that there should some point and purpose to it.
Your subjective purpose. Perhaps the only reason they lose sleep over thinking there are monsters under their bed in the first place is they have been raised to subscribe to entirely unsubstantiated claims. Probably due to your ***** footing around your religious apologetics and special pleading all the time.

But as we can see, you are happy to engage in indoctrination (as YOU call it not me) when it suits your subjective purposes but otherwise not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2014, 07:57 AM
 
88 posts, read 114,773 times
Reputation: 114
My grandfather told me God doesn't exist when I was around that age. I'm grateful to him for opening my eyes so early.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 07:59 AM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,247,893 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Like telling it like it is - if the best evidence counts for more than faith. Isn't that where the thread started?
"Telling it like it is" is giving the statement "There is no god" way too much credit. We don't know if that's how it is. I have no issue with "I don't believe there is a god" or "I believe there is no god", however, because these are in fact just telling it like it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Your subjective purpose. Perhaps the only reason they lose sleep over thinking there are monsters under their bed in the first place is they have been raised to subscribe to entirely unsubstantiated claims. Probably due to your ***** footing around your religious apologetics and special pleading all the time.
So much wrong with this statement.

First, since I didn't make a case for religion at all (but it can be said I defended belief in a god or gods), I am no religious apologetic. This catch phrase may fool some posters on the board, but you and I both know what I've said and what I haven't.

Second, no special pleading. I happen to hold things to a different standard altogether. Whereas you feel evaluation of the evidence is the be all and end all in explaining why you say what you do to a child, I feel that an assessment of what it's actually going to change for the child is in order. That is why, with me, anything that doesn't seem to be harmful in and of itself, my son is free to participate in and I won't make a special point of discouraging or hindering that.

Lastly, as I said before, to support your argument that my view ("There are no monsters under your bed" is good parenting while "There is no god" is not necessarily good parenting) is subjective, I will need to see some proposed benefit for the child, in telling him the latter. But you don't have anything to support that argument. You just threw that in there because it sounds agreeable. The question is, is it absolutely correct?

And yes, I'm happy to indoctrinate my child with views and beliefs that I know are less harmful than the alternative. I am not inclined to indoctrinate my child with views and beliefs I just happen to hold dear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 08:09 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,289,313 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
So much wrong with this statement.
Nice of you to preface your nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
First, since I didn't make a case for religion at all (but it can be said I defended belief in a god or gods), I am no religious apologetic.
Yet you are fueling and supporting their canard and the conversations obfuscations they always bring to the table by isolating one statement made on one basis from all the other statements made on the same basis, as if it deserves special consideration or treatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Second, no special pleading.
Except yes there is. Lots of it. The statements we have talked about are exactly the same and made on the same basis of the current state of the evidence (none). It is you isolating one and not the rest based on your own personal notions of good parenting and what does or does not constitute "indoctrination".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
That is why, with me
My point exactly. FOR YOU. Your subjective opinions on good parenting. I have been saying this for several pages now. Thanks for making my point for me. Again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
And yes, I'm happy to indoctrinate my child with views and beliefs that I know are less harmful than the alternative. I am not inclined to indoctrinate my child with views and beliefs I just happen to hold dear.
And I do not see it as "indoctrination" at all. You just trot that word out because its a "no no" buzz word like "intolerant" or "fundamentalist" or "bigot".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 08:36 AM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
"Telling it like it is" is giving the statement "There is no god" way too much credit. We don't know if that's how it is. I have no issue with "I don't believe there is a god" or "I believe there is no god", however, because these are in fact just telling it like it is.
So we get back to the beginning of the argument which is that 'There is no god' is merely shorthand that the kid can absorb.

Let's see if we can't stop the endless cycle of misunderstanding. There is no god in the sense of the Biblegod the kid is being sold at school. The Cosmic creator aspect is neither here nor there - as has been laboured in many different threads on the same subject.

The only honest response one cam make to a kid asking about the existence of Biblegod, just as in asking the about the existence of Santa or monsters under the bed is - 'No'. And how that may relate to night -terrors is irrelevant (1) to the basic tenet that it is best to tell the truth like it is - if reason and evidence count for anything.

(1) the idea that it is ok to tell a kid that there are no monsters under the bed because he will feel better but it in not ok to say that there is no God because he will feel worse is not the point - even if it was true, which I might take leave to doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 08:39 AM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,247,893 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Yet you are fueling and supporting their canard and the conversations obfuscations they always bring to the table by isolating one statement made on one basis from all the other statements made on the same basis, as if it deserves special consideration or treatment.
The belief that there is a god is separate from, whatever specific harmful doctrines you're going on about, in religion. Since I'm defending the first and not any of the latter, I am no religious apologetic. Theism/deism apologetic maybe, even though I've also agreed with you they are both illogical, IMO. I defend them still, not because I see logic in them, but because I see no harm (which is all one should look for before attacking/defending... well anything, really).

I explained why is it not special pleading in my last post, Nozz. Could you please address that explanation directly? Thank you.

And what is your point is saying it's subjective anyway? Do you wish to discourage me and all other parents from basing their decisions on what to say and what not to say to their children on an assessment of harm/risk vs benefit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
And I do not see it as "indoctrination" at all. You just trot that word out because its a "no no" buzz word like "intolerant" or "fundamentalist" or "bigot".
Huh? Okay, so I am happy to teach my child views and beliefs that I know are less harmful than the alternative. I am not inclined to teach my child to be an atheist just because I am one, because I've yet to see any reason to think believing in a deity is in and of itself harmful. Better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 08:48 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,289,313 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
The belief that there is a god is separate from, whatever specific harmful doctrines you're going on about, in religion.
Not so. At least not depending on the religion. Believing there is a god is the very basis foundation of their doctrines. That is the exact opposite of being separate from it. The beleif there is a god is a core basis for much of their harmful doctrines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Since I'm defending the first and not any of the latter, I am no religious apologetic.
But you are supporting the kind of religious apologetics we see around here by attempting to isolate one statement made on one basis from all the other statements made on the same basis, as if it deserves special consideration or treatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
I see no harm
And yet I do and have outlined it on many threads where that was the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
I explained why is it not special pleading in my last post
And I explained why it was in my last post. And many others besides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
And what is your point is saying it's subjective anyway?
Because it is and I was simply calling a spade a spade. You attempted to suggest it was not. I simply corrected and continue to correct this error. That is all the motivation I need. No need to look for onion layers of insidious motives behind my points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Do you wish to discourage me and all other parents from basing their decisions on what to say and what not to say to their children on an assessment of harm/risk vs benefit?
If I wanted that I would say that. As usual however you keep attempting to infer positions to me I do not even remotely hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Huh? Okay, so I am happy to teach my child views and beliefs that I know are less harmful than the alternative. I am not inclined to teach my child to be an atheist just because I am one, because I've yet to see any reason to think believing in a deity is in and of itself harmful. Better?
And as I say the only difference between telling a child there is no god, and telling it there are no monsters under its bed, is that you personally think one idea is harmful and the other is not. That was all my point has been for many pages now yet you seem quite uppity and haughty about it.

My own parenting approach is different. I would see having to address a kid's thinking there is a god, or monsters under the bed, as being treating the symtoms instead of the cause. Which to me is a failure from the outset. I am happy to tell a kid if needs be that there is no such monsters and no such god but I will be doing it solely as a prelude to addressing the disease and not the symptoms.... which is the disease.... one rife with potential harm..... of succumbing to unsubstantiated nonsense.

We all know the "give a man a fish and he will have dinner but give a man a rod and he will be fed for life" type phrases. One can commandeer this and say "Divest someone of a nonsense and you tidy some out of their mind, enlighten someone on the fallacy upon which that nonsense was based and you will clean have that house".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 08:56 AM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
The way I see it is, the argument to tell the kid what you don't believe on the grounds that somehow it is better for him sounds to me like the crafty apologetics of those with a religious agenda. I do not know why an atheist should do their dirty work for them, unless there is some residual 'you need religion, true or not' meme that has to be addressed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 09:21 AM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,247,893 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Not so. At least not depending on the religion. Believing there is a god is the very basis foundation of their doctrines. That is the exact opposite of being separate from it. The beleif there is a god is a core basis for much of their harmful doctrines.
But we are talking about the belief in a god or gods. That is it. Neither the thread nor our conversation has been about religion, much less harmful religions. Because if it were, we'd both be in agreement from the word "go". I see many religions/doctrines as harmful, because there's is objective evidence suggesting exactly that (hence the call would not be subjective), and for that reason I'd be all for telling a child those religions/doctrines are false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
But you are supporting the kind of religious apologetics we see around here by attempting to isolate one statement made on one basis from all the other statements made on the same basis, as if it deserves special consideration or treatment.
I am supporting the belief in a god or gods. That is all. It's not deserving of special treatment, and it need not be, because my standard is all about an assessment of harm/risk vs. benefit/neutrality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Theism/deism apologetic maybe, even though I've also agreed with you they are both illogical, IMO. I defend them still, not because I see logic in them, but because I see no harm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
And yet I do and have outlined it on many threads where that was the topic.
How is it not the topic now? Determining whether a belief in a god or gods is harmful would go right along with whether one should hinder their child's ability to believe in one. And I'll believe you've outlined the harm of a belief in a god in and of itself when I see it, Nozz. You understand. The whole "not subscribing to claims without substantiation" thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
And I explained why it was in my last post. And many others besides.
That's twice you've skipped over the meat of my argument and just said "nuh-uh". Is there any reason you're choosing not to reply to that argument directly? Here, I'll re-post it for you:

No special pleading. I happen to hold things to a different standard altogether. Whereas you feel evaluation of the evidence is the be all and end all in explaining why you say what you do to a child, I feel that an assessment of what it's actually going to change for the child is in order. That is why, with me, anything that doesn't seem to be harmful in and of itself, my son is free to participate in and I won't make a special point of discouraging or hindering that.

So where is the "special pleading", if I'm holding the god question to the exact same standard as everything else in my life? Is it special pleading just because you want me to hold everything to your standard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
And as I say the only difference between telling a child there is no god, and telling it there are no monsters under its bed, is that you personally think one idea is harmful and the other is not.
The scenario was that my child was frightened that a monster might be under his bed. This is harmful. It's not a subjective judgment call to say that if he doesn't get enough sleep, that could hurt him! Similarly, since you have not provided harms of the simple belief in a deity, the statements denying the existence of each cannot be compared by every standard. We've agreed that by the standard of substantiation of correctness, they are the same, but that's not the only factor here and you should know that, especially if you are a parent. I've asked time and again for a purpose behind "There is no god" and not a single person here has been able to provide one. They just off into explaining it via that previous standard. If you can't see how something with an identifiable benefit (though it may involve an unprovable statement) is better than something without identifiable benefit (while involving a similarly unprovable statement), I think we've reached the end of this conversation's potential. In fact... I'll give you the last word. I think if there's anything we might both agree on, it's that we're wasting our time on each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 09:48 AM
 
Location: The backwoods of Pennsylvania ... unfortunately.
5,846 posts, read 3,362,978 times
Reputation: 4056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
The belief that there is a god is separate from, whatever specific harmful doctrines you're going on about, in religion. Since I'm defending the first and not any of the latter, I am no religious apologetic. Theism/deism apologetic maybe, even though I've also agreed with you they are both illogical, IMO. I defend them still, not because I see logic in them, but because I see no harm (which is all one should look for before attacking/defending... well anything, really).
The harm is undermining your own position as a parent, someone to be trusted and obeyed, by being a hypocrit, unable to stand behind your own worldview. No doubt that my kid would ask me what I think about gods, and I would have to be honest: In my world, there are no gods. Perhaps evidence will surface someday for their existence, but not right now. And it's no more wise to completely believe in something before its proven than it is to spend money before you've earned it.

But then, minutes (if not seconds) later, I'm supposed to say that, aww shucks, maybe there's a god after all. We just don't know! Of course, if any child grew up to talk to imaginary friends in adulthood, that child would be getting therapy. But when and if they talk to gods, well, that's okay.

I explained why is it not special pleading in my last post, Nozz. Could you please address that explanation directly? Thank you.

And what is your point is saying it's subjective anyway? Do you wish to discourage me and all other parents from basing their decisions on what to say and what not to say to their children on an assessment of harm/risk vs benefit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
because I've yet to see any reason to think believing in a deity is in and of itself harmful. Better?
Different parents are going to have different views on what is truly harmful to their kids. Some parents are so over-protective that they may as well seal up their kids in bubble wrap until they hit 18 while others hardly seem to care what their kids do or where they go.

It's quite possible that some atheist parents will see dabbling with gods to hold significant potential for harm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top