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.
I feel that planting the seed that "There is no god" and not clarifying that you mean you think there is no god is fostering a very one-sided view of the matter, and it suggests that you know this when you don't. To an impressionable young child, I think you know the chances of that child just taking your word for it and seeing the god question with a bias from that point forward. While this may not be indoctrination all on its own (I've expressed my curiosity as to what else it could be), I would say it's at the very heart of it, absolutely.
But that's okay. I just figured if most non-believing parents can't volunteer a distinction between fact or faith (or lack thereof), most religious parents haven't a chance, and we can never ask them to try.
I feel that planting the seed that "There is no god" and not clarifying that you mean you think there is no god is fostering a very one-sided view of the matter, and it suggests that you know this when you don't. To an impressionable young child, I think you know the chances of that child just taking your word for it and seeing the god question with a bias from that point forward. While this may not be indoctrination all on its own (I've expressed my curiosity as to what else it could be), I would say it's at the very heart of it, absolutely.
But that's okay. I just figured if most non-believing parents can't volunteer a distinction between fact or faith (or lack thereof), most religious parents haven't a chance, and we can never ask them to try.
Yes, you make a good case and I suppose I can only say that, in terms of the sort of God we actually are talking about (biblegod, and specifically the Christian one) I would be confident enough that the claims were unsound that I would honestly feel that 'No', was justified, (though I might personally say 'I don't think there is - which is maybe the same thing) while leaving it open for further discussion. That is I would think short of what I would call 'indoctrination'.
But there's no escaping that, growing up in an atheist household, you are not going to hear too much of the other side.
Yes, you make a good case and I suppose I can only say that, in terms of the sort of God we actually are talking about (biblegod, and specifically the Christian one) I would be confident enough that the claims were unsound that I would honestly feel that 'No', was justified, (though I might personally say 'I don't think there is - which is maybe the same thing) while leaving it open for further discussion. That is I would think short of what I would call 'indoctrination'.
But there's no escaping that, growing up in an atheist household, you are not going to hear too much of the other side.
If you grow up in the US, you will hear about Christianity as a default, especially if you live in the South. Most of the atheist parents I know expose kids to many religions, but mostly as myth.
If you grow up in the US, you will hear about Christianity as a default, especially if you live in the South. Most of the atheist parents I know expose kids to many religions, but mostly as myth.
Well exactly. That's just like how many Christian parents tell their children about atheism... and how it's a trick of the devil
Well exactly. That's just like how many Christian parents tell their children about atheism... and how it's a trick of the devil
How would you describe religions like Zoroastrianism?
Most atheists do use a proviso that people still believe in these, but they present Hinduism, Budhism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam as equal. Christians only give kids their own religion and actually their own particular sect of that religion. Catholics don't present Lutheranism as equal to its own. Methodism does not present any other sect as its equal and Baptists certainly don't think any other version of Christianity is correct.
Well let me clarify something. I didn't know whether you were using the word "myth" to mean unproven or untrue. I would say that if you teach a kid, "Some believe believe differently than I do, and those people are wrong", naturally that's a questionable approach. But there's nothing wrong with stating that these other views have yet to be proven. They are just stories as of yet.
If you're asking if I would teach my son about religions similar to or from the same origins as Christianity, that's a definite yes. Because simply put, I want him to be tolerant of various religious views, not just the most popular here in the states. Plus it can expand your mind so you can better deal with the decision of choosing. I'm convinced that most Christians really have no idea how many religions there are to choose from or the similarities between theirs and alternatives.
Though I'm not sure that most atheists teach their kids... anything about religion. If we're just talking about non-believing parents, I'm sure a great deal of them neglect to actively educate on that topic altogether.
Though I'm not sure that most atheists teach their kids... anything about religion. If we're just talking about non-believing parents, I'm sure a great deal of them neglect to actively educate on that topic altogether.
It doesn't have to come from parents.
With churches on "every corner" and all the holiday that are religiously based as well as the majority of their friends/ classmates and other relatives, amongst other things like prayers before events, etc ., a kid cannot escape hearing about religion.
The same is not true for atheism.
Which, may I add, is the only reason they would ask about it in the first place.
I feel that planting the seed that "There is no god" and not clarifying that you mean you think there is no god is fostering a very one-sided view of the matter, and it suggests that you know this when you don't. To an impressionable young child, I think you know the chances of that child just taking your word for it and seeing the god question with a bias from that point forward. While this may not be indoctrination all on its own (I've expressed my curiosity as to what else it could be), I would say it's at the very heart of it, absolutely.
But that's okay. I just figured if most non-believing parents can't volunteer a distinction between fact or faith (or lack thereof), most religious parents haven't a chance, and we can never ask them to try.
You know, my real question throughout this whole discussion is who cares? If there's really a good reason to believe in god(s) the kid will figure it out eventually. Parents don't know everything, and yet somehow kids manage to learn things in school that their parents were wrong about.
Parents are bound to be wrong about all sorts of things - they can't be experts in literature, science, math and all sorts of technology related subjects. That's why kids god to school to learn in addition to getting information from their parents. If there's similar evidence for god that there is for, say, special relativity or calculus then kids will sort it out in due time.
So what is the real danger here? A missed chance at indoctrinating kids to treat god beliefs more gently than those based on reality?
It doesn't have to come from parents.
With churches on "every corner" and all the holiday that are religiously based as well as the majority of their friends/ classmates and other relatives, amongst other things like prayers before events, etc ., a kid cannot escape hearing about religion.
The same is not true for atheism.
Which, may I add, is the only reason they would ask about it in the first place.
Naturally I do want more kids to be exposed to atheism. And we were discussing teaching kids about religion in general, not just Christianity or Judaism. I'm not sure most atheists make an effort to introduce anything to their kids, so there are probably many children with atheistic parents who only know of these two religions (which is a disservice to them, IMO).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
You know, my real question throughout this whole discussion is who cares? If there's really a good reason to believe in god(s) the kid will figure it out eventually. Parents don't know everything, and yet somehow kids manage to learn things in school that their parents were wrong about.
Parents are bound to be wrong about all sorts of things - they can't be experts in literature, science, math and all sorts of technology related subjects. That's why kids god to school to learn in addition to getting information from their parents. If there's similar evidence for god that there is for, say, special relativity or calculus then kids will sort it out in due time.
So what is the real danger here? A missed chance at indoctrinating kids to treat god beliefs more gently than those based on reality?
Can't speak for anyone else. But as a father, I care about just how my son comes to know of and think about religion and the god question. And you and I both know that if I feed him "There's no god" right from the beginning, this will hinder him from seeing any "good reasons" to believe that he may find on his own (which I do believe there are, for some people). That is, I'm giving him a bias right from the start. I don't want to do that. I want him to base the decision on his own reasoning which would later form his own values.
Rest assured, I'll flat-out hand "There's not gonna be any objective evidence one way or the other" to him from the get-go. Understanding that this is a faith issue and not a matter of fact is the most important thing he needs anyway. With that, indoctrination is as unlikely as it's going to get.
And I conceded to that point, and even quite recently reiterated that in terms of a lack of evidence
Exactly but for reasons known only to yourself, despite recognizing my point is true, you have been flapping around desperately all the time to justify your Captain Caveat use of one phrase and not the other ever since. Despite the fact that this subjective parenting choice on your behalf has nothing to do with the point I was making originally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
However, to say they are the same in every way is ridiculous.
Then how fortunate it must be to your peace of mind to notice I never said any such thing. All I have said since the beginning is in terms of the basis on evidence upon which they are based they are in fact the same in every way. You are taking my statements out of the context I placed them in, because you want my statements to be ridiculous.... and if you remove the context.... then they are indeed THEN ridiculous.
I am sorry the context is so inconvenient to you, but you do not just get to remove it to make a point that is otherwise irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
One has a very clear and honorable purpose (helping your child sleep better) and the other really does seem to be an attempt to close the doors to alternative views for your child (aka indoctrination).
And again the idea it is "Honorable" is just your subjective parenting choice. Looked at another way.... your way.... it is ALSO "an attempt to close the doors to alternative views for your child (aka indoctrination).". That is: The alternative view that there might actually be monsters under the bed.
But using subjective, arbitrary, and contrived reasoning you simply ignore the conditions you apply in one context in the second context, and justify this to yourself by elevating... in your own mind.... the honorability and loftiness of your perceived goals when doing so.
And it seems the best retort you have to this nugget of fact is to type "Oh please".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
But Nozz demands consistency. And I don't consider the bold claim that "There is no god" a dose of reality.
It is a reality claim based on the current state of the evidence. Just like "There are no monsters under beds". Theists do like to build up this notion that if you have absolutely no evidence for or against a proposition that therefore the proposition is 50:50 either way and you can not make a valid truth statement on the subject anywhere ever.
I also have absolutely no evidence for or against the concept that the next time I leave the house a pink with purple pokka dot VW Microbus is going to materialize above my head, fall on me, and kill me. Yet I doubt anyone will have any issue with me making the judgement call that "This is just not going to happen to me". Despite the lack of evidence for OR against the event, not one person is going to have a tantrum yelling "You just do not know that!!!!!".
Yet when the subject turns to "god" all bets are off and the same TYPE of statement made on the same BASIS for all the same reasons..... is suddenly not one you are meant to make. That the theists have injected this kind of mentality into the general population over the centuries, even to the point that atheists will defend for days on end in a forum that type of mentality..... really is a win for theists and a lose for our species.
I do not "demand" consistency but there are genuinely good times to apply some, on a bed of honesty and with a side order of cop on.
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.
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.
