What kind of world do you wish for your children to grow up in?

With the wonderful difference that if you choose to speak a different language, nobody is going to yell at you and tell you you're going to burn in hell for doing so, and best of all language is a tool not a belief/dogma system which has huge other effects on various areas of your life.

Can we drop the useless comparison now please

philologos

I really don't think it is useless anymore than saying that teaching a child about faith is "indoctrination" (didn't Wicknight show you an article that suggested the contrary from this months New Scientist which had suggested that the sense of God was innate?), language is a distinction of cultural identity just as much as religion is a distinction of religious identity within the world.

fitz0

Jakkass wrote: »

fitz0 is that really true though? Many atheists on here have claimed that choice of religion is predominately based on geography.

I know it is but it shouldn't be. Im sure you as a theists would rather people truly believe rather than just be a localized believer.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I really don't think it is useless anymore than saying that teaching a child about faith is "indoctrination" (didn't Wicknight show you an article that suggested the contrary from this months New Scientist which had suggested that the sense of God was innate?), language is a distinction of cultural identity just as much as religion is a distinction of religious identity within the world.

One is a tool to communicate, the other is a belief system. Language doesn't claim to have morals which impact on your everyday life.
It is a useless comparison

uncleoswald

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So if a parent let their child smoke, bought them cigarettes and told them that it was ok to do so. Do you think that when that child became an adult and had listened to their parents and had become addicted to nicotine that (s)he would easily be able to give up smoking, break the addiction and understand it was damaging to their health?

Okay enough with the smoking analogy, it clearly doesn't fit. Nicotine an addictive drug, religion is basically an ideology. Should we ban the mention of any political view points at home also? Should we not express our views on racism and let them decide for themselves?

Originally Posted by eoin5
No, thats child abuse. Whats wrong with letting children think for themselves?

Again not child abuse. Unless it is of a fanatical bent and then like many things its up to social welfare to decide if the child is at risk. What IS wrong with letting a child think for themselves? Having been raised a Catholic and deciding myself that I didn't believe in it I think I have improved my capacity for rational thought.

toiletduck

Jakkass wrote: »

I really don't think it is useless anymore than saying that teaching a child about faith is "indoctrination" (didn't Wicknight show you an article that suggested the contrary from this months New Scientist which had suggested that the sense of God was innate?), language is a distinction of cultural identity just as much as religion is a distinction of religious identity within the world.

It doesn't stand up at all. A child must learn a language or they will never be able to. And indeed people can have more than one language etc etc. Really why are you pursuing such a logically lacking train of thought?

philologos

fitz0 wrote: »

I know it is but it shouldn't be. Im sure you as a theists would rather people truly believe rather than just be a localized believer.

Of course I would, I'd prefer if everyone on the face of the earth had a living faith in Jesus Christ, not based on anything but sincerity.

toiletduck wrote:

It doesn't stand up at all. A child must learn a language or they will never be able to. And indeed people can have more than one language etc etc. Really why are you pursuing such a logically lacking train of thought?

Don't some people have more than one religion? In China people blend Confuscianism and Buddhism if I am correct? Also there are syncretic religions in Africa and South America.

You say a child must learn a language, however what is the dictat that one must be learned over another? Why isn't it child abuse to learn English over French, than to raise a child Christian over secular? One also has to pick a stance on the God question. One is going to be predisposed by their parents to follow a religion as one will be predisposed to their parents to speak a language. The child abuse claim is the one that is "logically lacking".

Argument by analogy is a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter how good the argument appears to be, it's still a fallacy. This particular one (comparing religion to a language) is not a particularly good example of an analogy, I must say. But, it's still no less valid than the comparison of religion to cigarettes.

toiletduck

Jakkass wrote: »

Don't some people have more than one religion? In China people blend Confuscianism and Buddhism if I am correct? Also there are syncretic religions in Africa and South America.

I don;t know. The use of "blend" would imply they're one and new though.

You say a child must learn a language, however what is the dictat that one must be learned over another?

To repeat: You learn a language, any language, in order to communicate and develop that part of the brain before its too late. Tbh it doesn't seem to matter which, and quite surprisingly it's usually the language of the parents (or the parents and societies, e.g. English and Irish).

You don't need to learn a religion before a certain age. At all. I honestly can't believe that someone thinks it's a good analogy.

Why isn't it child abuse to learn English over French, than to raise a child Christian over secular? One also has to pick a stance on the God question. One is going to be predisposed by their parents to follow a religion as one will be predisposed to their parents to speak a language. The child abuse claim is the one that is "logically lacking".

Well I didn't argue that and said so. As I said I see the political indoctrination more apt.

uncleoswald

Húrin wrote: »

If that is so, then why has the rise of atheism in the 20th century coincided with the elevation of warfare to unprecedented levels of brutality? If atheism makes people love and help each other, why has the rise of atheism in Ireland coincided with our society becoming more alienated and individualistic?

Technology and city living are the answers to those questions. Although I'd very much like to see some evidence that you base your second question on. And do you really think that the Crusaders wouldn't have used poisonous gas if it had been available? We know of the human capacity for cruelty and without out wanting to sound facetious or insulting the Old Testament has some stunning acts of cruelty between its pages

I have read a few (dubious) studies that claim that church goers are less likely to have spent time in jail then non-church goers but I don't think all non-church goers should just be lumped in together. I wonder what the studies would reveal if a distinction were made between non-church goers and card carrying Atheists or Humanists?

philologos

Indeed, I'm studying philosophical logic, however it is only a fallacy if it isn't apt for the situation. Language and religion are two things that are commonly perceived to be inherited from parents to children in many cases.

Anyhow, if anything is fallacious at all, it is claiming that teaching children a religion is child abuse without giving any reason to substantiate it.

toiletduck wrote:

You don't need to learn a religion before a certain age. At all. I honestly can't believe that someone thinks it's a good analogy.

Many would argue one needs religion before the age at which one dies. However this is highly contentious.

Húrin

Overblood wrote: »

Hurin please don't start with that moral stuff. I don't get goodness from the bible I get goodness from me. I'm a good guy. Look, no god!

lol,

Maybe atheists shouldn't do any moral bragging on behalf of their belief system, if they don't want to be questioned on it.

Overblood wrote: »

Like George Bush Jnr. & Snr. invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Both Christians by the way.

21st century.

The causes of war have not much to do with the religious beliefs of the individuals who start them. I don't call Stalin's wars "atheist wars", for instance. It has a lot more to do with the state of the cultures in which the wars happen.

Which other wars are you talking about? Oh yeah, Israel and Palestine yeah that... wait... no that's religious too. Hmmm...

I don't think I should have to point out particular wars in the 20th century, they're just so obvious.

Dave! wrote: »

You really do test my patience Hurin...

Then refute me. Are you denying that secularisation and atheism have been major influences on western culture?

Besides, we're not talking about wars. We're talking about the supposed moral superiority of a hypothetical purely atheist society. History does not support such a notion.

toiletduck

Jakkass wrote: »

Many would argue one needs religion before the age at which one dies. However this is highly contentious.

Let me clarify what I meant.

Show me a person who was brought up without any religion and then converted in adulthood. I'm sure that would prove no bother.

Now show me a person who has mastery of language who was brought up without any. You can't.



Put it to bed.

H&#250

H&#250 wrote: »

Then refute me. Are you denying that secularisation and atheism have been major influences on western culture?

What secularisation? The extremely christian USA? The catholic ireland where you're lucky to get a kid into a non-religious school?

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Whats wrong with letting children think for themselves?

Raising children in a religion and letting them think for themselves are not mutually exclusive. There is ample evidence that raising people in a religion (or atheism) does not stop them from questioning or rejecting that in their late teens.

I have a feeling that a lot of atheists want to let their children think for themselves, but not to the extent of them embracing religion.

bluewolf wrote: »

With the wonderful difference that if you choose to speak a different language, nobody is going to yell at you and tell you you're going to burn in hell for doing so

Most religious people don't "yell at you and tell you you're going to burn in hell". If you think that linguistic differences never cause tension you're very naive. Ever heard someone give out about "them immigrants" not understanding english?

best of all language is a tool not a belief/dogma system which has huge other effects on various areas of your life.

Having just come back from working with people at the local SVP shelter, I don't see how this is the bad thing you pretend it is.

Having just come back from working with people at the local SVP shelter, I don't see how this is the bad thing you pretend it is.

Did I say it's bad? Am I pretending something here unbeknownst to myself?

philologos

toiletduck wrote: »

Well I didn't argue that and said so. As I said I see the political indoctrination more apt.

How is religion political in any way? Does the Bible tell you which political party to support?

toiletduck

Jakkass wrote: »

How is religion political in any way? Does the Bible tell you which political party to support?

Not what I said at all *sigh*

philologos

What's the comparison between teaching a child about religion and political indoctrination?

toiletduck

Jakkass wrote: »

What's the comparison between teaching a child about religion and political indoctrination?

Both are ideas held by the parents, which can be passed on to the child. Although not passing them on in childhood will make no difference to whether the child can hold views/stances on either. Unlike language development which was the point I was making.

I would think it obvious.

fatmammycat

In answer to the original question, a good fair world, where money was not the be all and end all, and where people were not arseholes and treated each other as people of equal value, everyone had enough to eat, we were free of reiki, psychics, religion, angels, woo, and any other sort of claptrap. Yes please, that would be wonderful.

Húrin

toiletduck wrote: »

Both are ideas held by the parents, which can be passed on to the child. Although not passing them on in childhood will make no difference to whether the child can hold views/stances on either. Unlike language development which was the point I was making.

I would think it obvious.

Well, that's assuming that the child is raised in a 'blank slate' culture. Parents withholding theirs views on politics and religion does not mean that the child grows up neutral and free-thinking on these things.

I also think that you're using a straw man. Most parents who raise their children in a church are not engaging in some sort of vicious, repressive indoctrination. That's just not the case.

bluewolf wrote: »

What secularisation? The extremely christian USA? The catholic ireland where you're lucky to get a kid into a non-religious school?

You're not seeing the woods for the trees. You're using vestiges of the highly religious past of these countries (e.g. a lot of people go to church in America; the church patronises the schools in Ireland) to pretend that they're still quasi-theocracies.

America is not an 'extremely Christian' place - some like to think it is, but it's not; have you ever been there? The fact that the government has been too lazy to patronise the schools themselves here, does mean that these schools are a bunch of seminaries.

In reality, these are places intellectually dominated by scientific positivism, and the resultant style of capitalism. That's why economic growth is their main priority (also the reason for the wars), and "moral values" are sidelined into window-dressing issues like gay marriage and euthanasia.

toiletduck

Húrin wrote: »

Well, that's assuming that the child is raised in a 'blank slate' culture. Parents withholding theirs views on politics and religion does not mean that the child grows up neutral and free-thinking on these things.

Where did I say that?

I also think that you're using a straw man. Most parents who raise their children in a church are not engaging in some sort of vicious, repressive indoctrination. That's just not the case.

Now that's a strawman. I used the phrase "indoctrination" for lack of a better word.

Dave!

Húrin wrote: »

Then refute me. Are you denying that secularisation and atheism have been major influences on western culture?

I already did. You're implying that because religiosity is on the decrease and "immorality" is on the increase that there is a causal relationship between the two. I showed you that pirates are on the decrease and global temperature is on the increase, so therefore there must be a causal relationship between the two.

What's wrong with my own claim?

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

Destroying religion is illiberal.

Not if it is done with words and not coercion. What's illiberal about convincing people of an intellectual position based solely on the merits of that position?

So it's not religion you wish to destroy, it's theocracy. Why do you have a hard time telling the difference?

You don't need a theocratic state for religion to have power over society. The worlds only theocracy is not the most conservative country. As long as religion remains, there will be problems which would not exist if it were gone.

Why is it more tolerant to rule the lives of others with your naturalist worldview than with a religious one?

I don't want to "rule" anyone with my worldview, I want them to adopt it or something similar and use it to guide themselves through life. It's kind of sad to see people being ruled by a world view, particularly one which was made up by bronze age barbarians and which cannot change.

Ha, pirates vs temp....I love that one. It's like the graph showing the height of the Hindenburg is inversely proportional to The Horror!!!.

Húrin

uncleoswald wrote: »

Technology and city living are the answers to those questions.

Well, what do you think caused these things, and the way our culture views them?

Although I'd very much like to see some evidence that you base your second question on.

Well, there's my personal experience of anecdotal evidence. The "loss" of community in Celtic Tiger Ireland has been lamented so many times that it's a cliche.

There's also the following study, conducted in culture that is somewhat 'ahead' of Ireland in the secular capitalism stakes:
‘Consultation on modern-day social evils’, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 20.04.2008
Available online at http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/741

I have read a few (dubious) studies that claim that church goers are less likely to have spent time in jail then non-church goers but I don't think all non-church goers should just be lumped in together. I wonder what the studies would reveal if a distinction were made between non-church goers and card carrying Atheists or Humanists?

Then you would be back to the pirates and global temperature problem. Too many variables (for instance "card carrying" Atheists or Humanists tend to be in the upper classes).

It's really, really not about individuals. It's about cultures. Why reduce it to scapegoating individuals?

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Not if it is done with words and not coercion. What's illiberal about convincing people of an intellectual position based solely on the merits of that position?

It's naive to think that everyone will agree with you. Worldviews which insist that they are the only way to truth tend to be oppressive:

“what science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know” - Bertrand Russell

(please do not try to start a debate about epistemology)

You don't need a theocratic state for religion to have power over society. The worlds only theocracy is not the most conservative country.

Indeed, it's quite possible to be conservative and secular. Indeed, many of the most radical people in history have also been quite spiritual.

As long as religion remains, there will be problems which would not exist if it were gone.

I doubt it. When religion is removed from a society, the people tend to deify something else, for example Lenin in the USSR.

I don't want to "rule" anyone with my worldview, I want them to adopt it or something similar and use it to guide themselves through life.

Most non-cultish religions teach exactly the same thing. But it's authoritarian control, apparently, when it's the guide is my worldview, but it's free-thinking when it's yours.

toiletduck wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Sorry I didn't read your argument properly. I thought you were saying that children raised without religion would all be able to take an objective look at them all and decide which is true.

Now that's a strawman. I used the phrase "indoctrination" for lack of a better word.

... knowing full well what it connotes, surely.

eoin5

I was calling this child abuse:

uncleoswald wrote:

If parents want to raise their children religiously then they should have every right to do so and as they grow older they can believe in whatever they want.

Thats thought control and is extremely wrong. Forcing irrational crap onto children for years and then letting them think for themselves is a horrible thing to do to a child. For parents to think its their right to do this is incredible.

I agree with Hurin in that they dont have to be mutually exclusive. The biggest abuse I see is telling things to children as facts giving them no chance to think for themselves. Telling a youngster that there is definitely a hell is particularly deranged.

Rev I dont know how you can reserve a term such as child abuse for certain cases. All child abuse is child abuse. I know there are much worse things going on but people are denying children their young minds, lets call a spade a spade.

Rev Hellfire

eoin5 wrote: »

Thats thought control and is extremely wrong. Forcing irrational crap onto children for years and then letting them think for themselves is a horrible thing to do to a child. For parents to think its their right to do this is incredible.

No that's called parenting and the only way you'll not have parents imparting their views and opinions is to removed all children from the families and have the state raise them. Then they'll be nice and safe from the other free thinkers.

Its very sad and all that some of your parents had the affront to raise you in the manner they felt best, but these discussions seem less about other people and more about some perceived 'oppression' individual posters feel about their childhood and rearing.

seanybiker

I hope my kids grow up in a world where they dont have religion rammed down their throats from their first day of school. If the want to believe in some hairy bearded dead dude its upto them. Mainly though as long as their healthy ill be happy. Yes I am atheist but i dont let it rule my life like some people on here. Its not a big deal to me. Dont see why so many people never shut up about been atheist. Its as annoying as religious people not shutting up about their beliefs.