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.
By and large its a drag for atheists if the youngster asks about information and wants to get to know the parent in more ways, which is impossible to stop because it is connected to getting praise, which explains some of the not so transparent quirky things.
Its a drag because what they are searching about is what does the parent ultimately stand for here, what is the bottom line and where exactly is this praise fitting in, whats the right button to push, plus the natural but they are not the boss and know .
Once the convo starts because of all the love and all that you are important stuff to get past the god issues or replace with some kind of constructive meaningful thing, the youngster knows there is nothing but space which is not, reflective of anything. Everything is a reflection or outcome of exactly something. There is no exactly something in an improvised harlequin birthday card, it is a suggestion. So the answer becomes the question itself with the suggestion which is now a query, once this happens control and leadership is given to the kid because the adult is swinging in the breeze on what button to push themselves and they will eventually pursue taking over. The alternate in weighty extreme will be an eventual pursue take over as well. Its simple for the issue, an adult is posing as boss of the house and then turn and say there is no boss for the world or in my wisdom there is no boss . All that's left is law and order, more barns. It won't work against the wiring of the brain. I would probably do what I think most atheist would do, say your prayers and go to sleep and be in a self trouble-free about the whole thing. Example is everything and they will eventually say some kind of prayer , wedging in there I don't think is a good idea for anything.
Let me guess: That mysterious post with no post number
No. As I keep telling you I have made one single point here and I am sticking to it. YOU keep trying to derail it into other points and ideas and arguments for reasons known only to yourself.
Once again: The statements that there is no god.... and the statements that there are no monsters under a bed.... are exactly logically equivalent. They are based on an interpretation and evaluation of the exact same data (or lack of it) as each other.
You see saying one to a kid as indoctrinating them into your opinion on one hand and not letting them decide for themselves on the other hand. You however do not see the other statement as being either of these things. Your caveat for this position is merely that you see the other statement as being good parenting.
And I find this to be arbitrary subjective and contrived.
And thats my position and point. No "mysterious" post numbers required. THAT is why you are not getting such post numbers because THAT is my position and you keep asking me to discuss tangential and parallel points that I am not here actually making or discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
It's really simple.
Not simple: Simplistic. And I have just explained why.
No. As I keep telling you I have made one single point here and I am sticking to it. YOU keep trying to derail it into other points and ideas and arguments for reasons known only to yourself.
No, you've gone beyond that. You've claimed that it's only in my mind, that telling a child "There are no monsters under your bed" when the fear in such is keeping them awake is more honorable and better parenting than telling them "There is no god". Even in terms of logic, there must be an equally sound reason to do the latter. Otherwise, it may just be irrational, yes? That is why I keep asking, because you keep asking for me to ask
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You see saying one to a kid as indoctrinating them into your opinion on one hand and not letting them decide for themselves on the other hand. You however do not see the other statement as being either of these things. Your caveat for this position is merely that you see the other statement as being good parenting.
But there is an objective reason for thinking that, Nozz. If a child tells you he's having trouble sleeping, or he's afraid, etc. and he wants you to check under his bed for monsters, you have all the information you need to determine what to tell him. With "There is no god", it's just you promoting your beliefs seemingly without any reasoning (or at least without reasoning you feel comfortable sharing with a message board full of strangers) and absolutely no call for it. No one's arguing that kids should always get to decide everything for themselves. Only someone obsessed with consistency to an unhealthy degree would do that. What I'm saying to you is that since we can think of no harm in it (your silence on that question confirms), we should let children decide this (the god question) for themselves. Otherwise, it's no different than me deciding my child's favorite color. I'd be way off to suggest this is exactly the same as choosing how often he drinks soda, or some such. Because there are reasons we can articulate for some behaviors and not others.
Nope. My point is still the same as it has been since the start. You just do not want to deal with it. I am discussing the statements. You are off discussing what you personally feel is good parenting. And the more you fail to derail me from my point, the more shrill and desperate you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
you have all the information you need to determine what to tell him. With "There is no god", it's just you promoting your beliefs seemingly without any reasoning
So now not only are you repeating yourself, you are also repeating me. You here are just saying exactly what I just summarised in the post before. You are taking the two statements, claiming saying one is bad and one is good, despite the statements being the same. And using a subjective and arbitrary reason to justify that to yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
What I'm saying to you is that since we can think of no harm in it (your silence on that question confirms)
No, my silence on the question confirms nothing except the fact I told you I will not be derailed into side points I am not making. The "harm" you imagine with the god issue is entirely your own invention.
Nope. My point is still the same as it has been since the start. You just do not want to deal with it. I am discussing the statements. You are off discussing what you personally feel is good parenting. And the more you fail to derail me from my point, the more shrill and desperate you get.
You can stop with the personal attacks anytime. You did go beyond that single point we agreed on so very long ago, and I elaborated on how. Conveniently, you saw fit not to reply to my elaboration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
So now not only are you repeating yourself, you are also repeating me. You here are just saying exactly what I just summarised in the post before. You are taking the two statements, claiming saying one is bad and one is good, despite the statements being the same. And using a subjective and arbitrary reason to justify that to yourself.
It's not subjective or arbitrary. One is a reaction to something known to be real (a child telling you he can't sleep because he's scared and wants you to confirm there are no monsters under his bed), the other is an action taken because of something in the parent's mind (possible belief that theism will be harmful to the child, we're not sure because you won't comment on it).
Basically, if you're going to keep saying there are not necessarily any more reasons to tell a child one than to them the other... I am going to keep pointing out how there are reasons to ease his mind about monsters, and asking you to provide reasons for telling him there's no god.
Since I have done no such thing I do not need to stop. But have fun changing the subject. Again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Conveniently, you saw fit not to reply to my elaboration.
Again: You know what my point is and I am sticking to it. You can ditch the attempts to change the subject whenever you feel like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
It's not subjective or arbitrary.
Except yes it is. It is your personal parenting methods you are bringing to the table and are pretending are objective. But your personal parenting methods are the only thing you have to distinguish between the two statements in a contrived and manufactured way.
The fact is if you tell them there is no monsters you are just as much instilling your beliefs on them as if you tell them there is no god. I have no issue with doing either. You do, for your own arbitrary subjective reasons. Thats fine, I have no issue with that, but I insist on calling a spade a spade at the same time. Get over it.
Since I have done no such thing I do not need to stop.
You just did it Here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
And the more you fail to derail me from my point, the more shrill and desperate you get.
But I am to understand "shrill" and "desperate" are complements?
And yes, you did go beyond that one simple point. As said in the elaboration you're hoping I'll forget you never replied directly to...
You've claimed that it's only in my mind, that telling a child "There are no monsters under your bed" when the fear in such is keeping them awake is more honorable and better parenting than telling them "There is no god". Even in terms of logic, there must be an equally sound reason to do the latter. Otherwise, it may just be irrational, yes? That is why I keep asking for that reason, because you keep asking for me to ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
It's not subjective or arbitrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Except yes it is.
Nope. As said in the rest of the paragraph,
One is a reaction to something known to be real (a child telling you he can't sleep because he's scared and wants you to confirm there are no monsters under his bed), the other is an action taken because of something in the parent's mind (possible belief that theism will be harmful to the child, we're not sure because you won't comment on it).
Basically, if you're going to keep saying there are not necessarily any more reasons to tell a child one than to them the other... I am going to keep pointing out how there are reasons to ease his mind about monsters, and asking you to provide reasons for telling him there's no god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
It is your personal parenting methods you are bringing to the table and are pretending are objective.
My parenting methods are objective, lol. They are quite visible indeed...
Anyway, I know what you meant. I just explained how one is more grounded in logic than the other, if you ever care to read it (maybe even, hyuck, respond to it directly?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
The fact is if you tell them there is no monsters you are just as much instilling your beliefs on them as if you tell them there is no god.
When did I ever suggest it was wrong to instill beliefs into your child? That is not the issue. Even the indoctrination is not wrong, per se; it just means you can relate to a Christian fundamentalist parent more than you care to admit.
No I did not. I evaluated exactly what I thought of something. If you want to pretend it is an "attack" then so be it. But it does make it so. I find your constant attempts to dodge my point by derailing me into other points to be shrill and desperate. That is merely my evaluation of the situation. If you choose to take offense to that then this is your value judgement, not mine, and you need to deal with this alone. Not by lashing out at me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And yes, you did go beyond that one simple point. As said in the elaboration you're hoping I'll forget you
I am not hoping you will forget anything. I allowed myself to be derailed until I realised this was your MO/Tactic. As soon as I realised your tactic in debate is to avoid points by derailing into other points, I instantly reverted to sticking to my actual points and disallowing your tactic from functioning.
Again my point is easy to follow: You came into this thread saying you do not want to tell children there is no god because you do not "know" that. I pointed out that you also do not "know" there are no monsters under a kids bed. At this point you became captain caveat and started justifying one over the other with those caveats. Thus making my point for me that your original contention that you do not tell children there is no god because you do not "know" this was at best incomplete and at worst simply erroneous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
You've claimed that it's only in my mind, that telling a child "There are no monsters under your bed" when the fear in such is keeping them awake is more honorable and better parenting than telling them "There is no god".
No, my claim is that your decision that one is good parenting and the other is not is subjective and arbitry. You see one as being indoctrination into your belief but the other one is not. Yet I see them both as being equally so. In both cases you would be making the same statement, based on exactly the same evidence, but you justify one indoctrination to yourself by deeming it to be good parenting.
The fact is they are both equally indoctrination. They are both equally shutting down the childs progress in deciding for itself. The fact simply is you have merely justified one to yourself but not the other. In your theistic apologetics you essentially are singling out god claims for special treatment. As if the claim there is a god deserves some special dispensation where we must walk around the claim on egg shells lest we some how impinge on the mental freedom of children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Nope. As said in the rest of the paragraph,
Yep. As explained in my previous post and this one here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
My parenting methods are objective
You might want them to be.... much like theists want their personal morality to be objective.... but simply declaring it to be so will not perform this magically for you. Calling something objective does not make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
if you ever care to read it
I read your posts just fine thanks. Given the number of times you have contrived to wantonly misrepresent what I have said on these fora you are the last person around here with a pedestal from which to make a comment like this.
You said I was shrill and desperate, Nozz. That is a personal attack, whether you admit it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I am not hoping you will forget anything. I allowed myself to be derailed until I realised this was your MO/Tactic.
This is just your way of saying you can't answer questions that naturally followed the statements you have made. We are far beyond the point that "The reason I won't tell my son there is no god is because I do not know" is not correct. But you went beyond that. You said that it was all arbitrary, choosing one statement over the other. But I'm arguing that it's not just in my mind that one is better parenting than the other, and you call that subjective. So the natural thing to do at that point would be to discuss the benefit of reassuring my son there are no monsters under his bed (he can go to sleep faster and/or sleep more peacefully), vs the benefit of telling him there is no god. You have chosen not to discuss the latter, so your claim that it's all subjective and arbitrary is at this point undefended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You might want them to be.... much like theists want their personal morality to be objective.... but simply declaring it to be so will not perform this magically for you. Calling something objective does not make it so.
This is proof you are not reading. I had said my parenting methods were objective, because they were visible. It was a joke... and you didn't get it, because you weren't really paying attention to what was being said. You are just too quick to disagree, to waste time reading.
If you have any other points to make, I will be glad to consider them. If you would like to move forward in any sort of discussion on this topic, I will be glad to participate. But if you're done contributing, let me know now, so we can stop wasting each other's time. Thank you.
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.
Here:
