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

philologos

eoin5 wrote: »

I was calling this child abuse:

Yes and that's what I have been considering. You must consider most things that parents teach their children to be child abuse then.

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 it isn't any more than parents teach their children the distinction between what is right and wrong. Or should we just let them run loose and then determine ethics for themselves.

eoin5 wrote: »

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.

Yes, child abuse is child abuse, however that doesn't necessitate that parents teaching their children about faith is child abuse.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

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.

I'd rather give my child the option to reason their way into religion, than force them to reason their way out. You wouldn't want your child brought up as a Muslim, why do you think we should have our kids brought up in your religion?

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

I'd rather give my child the option to reason their way into religion, than force them to reason their way out. You wouldn't want your child brought up as a Muslim, why do you think we should have our kids brought up in your religion?

Where on earth are you getting that from? I'm responding to those who criticise other people who are religious who bring up their children in that religion. I'm making the case that it's just as valid as raising your child as an atheist.

Goduznt Xzst

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Argument by analogy is a logical fallacy

Agreed. My initial analogy was really just used as a form of inductive reasoning, not to show that cigarettes and religion are equal rather that they are not completely dissimilar. To argue the merits of my analogy to prove why it is not equal is a moot point, because they inherently aren't.

Equally so for arguing that indoctrination is equal to the language a child learns from birth. It inherently isn't, however it is not dissimilar.

The sole purpose of my analogy was to show that in the current social paradigm that we exist, smoking is a freedom that we are allowed, however, in regards to it our liberties are reduced and we, for the majority, accept this without qualm.

Jakkass wrote: »

Thankfully most people don't encourage discrimination on such a scale as you are suggesting. This would be a violation of free speech and would be in violation of the constitution surely?

Really? So if a fundamental Christian sect wanted to take out billboards saying that "Homosexuals will burn in hell" that they should be allowed? You discriminate against many groups of people that you view as wrong, you are bigoted against allowing a lot of people from having their freedom of speech because you view what they have to say as damaging to society.

In the current paradigm paralysis that you exist in you see religion as a beacon of good, so why wouldn't you want to be allowed to advertise it. I don't expect you to see it as I do, as much as I don't expect the Westboro Church to find Homosexuals as equal human beings.

I expect you to have a problem with my opinion, you would not be a theist, nor I an Atheist, if you didn't. However this thread is about Atheists expressing their hopes for the future of this world. You might as well, with Húrin, just say "I'm not going to agree with anything in this thread" and be done with it.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Child abuse is clearly something different, by banding the term around willy-nilly you do a disservice to those who have actually suffered abuse.

I was particular in my original post to not use the word "abuse" when referring to why children should not be made perform and take part in religious practices. However, I accept that parents will tell their children about god and why he wants them to be good regardless. My particular issue was with the actions that parents will force on their children to repent for their sins or work for their place in heaven. I said that this would be a case for social services to handle though depending on the severity.

uncleoswald wrote: »

religion is basically an ideology. Should we ban the mention of any political view points at home also?

There are plenty of ideologies that I believe social services should be able to step in to remove the children from. Take the children of the Westboro Church, do you think it would be wrong for those Children to be removed due to the ideology their parents are teaching them? If you think for a minute I'm sure you can imagine plenty of other ideologies that children should not be taught and told is "fact" or "God Ordained" during their formative years.

Also, further to my original topic, I have a question for Atheists. Would you be happy with a situation where the majority of schools are secular but that various religious groups are allowed to have their own schools to teach their children?

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Where on earth are you getting that from? I'm responding to those who criticise other people who are religious who bring up their children in that religion. I'm making the case that it's just as valid as raising your child as an atheist.

I think I must have got my synapses crossed with all the 'religion in education' threads about boards.ie - apologies for that.

In reality I don't have a problem with parents raising their kids in their religion*. Ironically, it's parents who do nothing but outsource that religious education to schools that really gets my goat up.


* With the exception of the particularly nutty ones.

uncleoswald

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There are plenty of ideologies that I believe social services should be able to step in to remove the children from. Take the children of the Westboro Church, do you think it would be wrong for those Children to be removed due to the ideology their parents are teaching them?

Like I said in my earlier post which you responded to it was up to social welfare to decide if the child was in danger. But disagreeing with someone's belief is not the same as believing it amounts to child abuse. You seem to be advocating Totalitarianism.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, further to my original topic, I have a question for Atheists. Would you be happy with a situation where the majority of schools are secular but that various religious groups are allowed to have their own schools to teach their children?

Its difficult, there is no easy answer. I would hope parents would put an education before religious indoctrine but millions of parents are 100% convinced that their child needs to be brought up by the rules of their religion and not doing so would go against their faith. You are very naive if you think implementing such extreme measures such as banning religion before the age of 16/18 would work or even be beneficial. You could in no way force parents to stop passing on their religious beliefs to their children and trying to do so would be disastrous and would no doubt lead to violence and fundamentalism. In no way do I agree that atheism can be classed as a belief in the religious sense of the word but parallels can be drawn between forcing total secularism on people and forcing religion on people. Except the sense of repression and rage felt by the religious would be far more dangerous as it would be justified by their God.

Its not perfect but I'm not going to throw out my own morals and beliefs to get what I want. Philosophically I agree with some of your points but your solutions have no practical use in the real world and will just lead to oppression.

Goduznt Xzst

uncleoswald wrote: »

Which ideologies? Who should decide which ones are okay and which are not? You? You really seem to be advocating a totalitarian regime.

The ideologies that society deems dangerous to itself and the minds of its children.

Explain please the reasoning behind why you wish for children to not be taught creationism as fact in schools, but you have no problem with them being taught it as fact when they are at home? How is the end result any different?

uncleoswald wrote: »

parallels can be drawn between forcing total secularism on people and forcing religion on people. Except the sense of repression and rage felt by the religious would be far more dangerous as it would be justified by their God.

Do you not imagine that religious people view the movement to remove their belief systems from government and remove their ideas from schools as a form of repression? Atheism aims to repress various religious influences on society, like it or not, that is our goal. Do you think once Secularists have removed Religion from schools and government that they will stop there?

uncleoswald wrote: »

Its not perfect but I'm not going to throw out my own morals and beliefs to get what I want. Philosophically I agree with some of your points but your solutions have no practical use in the real world and will just lead to oppression.

Then please detail how you imagine the secular world you hope for will look like? You never answered my previous question either. Would you be ok with various religions setting up their own non-secular schools to teach their children their beliefs alongside their normal education?

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

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)

Wouldn't dream of it. Yes, they are, however my world view doesn't insist it is the only way the "truth". My world view is about more than religion, and while I have a particular version of it, as I learn more I'm constantly modifying it. I also accept that it wouldn't work in all circumstance (like my economic view can change with changing circumstances).

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

Possible yes, but secular doesn't mean liberal, and the opposite of liberal (liberty) is, broadly speaking, oppression (conservative; note, I do not mean this at all in the economic sense). If I had a choice between a very liberal but religious world and a very secular but illiberal world, I'd go with the religious one. After all, since there's probably nothing after death, freedom is more important than secularism. It just so happens that in general the more secular a society, the freer it is.

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

You mean when religion is crushed and a new human god forces you to worship under pain of death. Yeah, nice comparison there. How about the the European countries which are very atheistic? Who or what has been elevated in Norway or France?

But it's authoritarian control, apparently, when it's the guide is my worldview, but it's free-thinking when it's yours.

Yeah, pretty much. When the bible has come into direct conflict with your moral sense and triumphed (as you have stated it has), you are not free thinking.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Overblood wrote: »

Now if I had my own way I'd have the whole middle east blown off the earth,

Overblood wrote: »

I don't get goodness from the bible I get goodness from me.

ROFL!

Overblood

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

ROFL!

The extremist muslims orders are to kill me, the infidel, and they would be delighted in doing so. So what the hell, why not fight fire wth fire?

Otherwise I'm a good guy:)

uncleoswald

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The ideologies that society deems dangerous to itself and the minds of its children.

I agree as you can see from my amended post. But unfortunately society isn't all one agreeing body. And you have to take others opinions belief into account otherwise how can you expect others to respect yours?

Explain please the reasoning behind why you wish for children to not be taught creationism as fact in schools, but you have no problem with them being taught it as fact when they are at home? How is the end result any different?

I simply don't believe that I should have a right to walk into someones homes and tell the parents that they must not teach their children creationism or they shall be taken away. I also don't think this is "dangerous" or "child abuse." Its not ideal, and underminds the facts that they are learning in school but its a price (a small one) we must pay for living in a non-oppressive state.

Do you not imagine that religious people view the movement to remove their belief systems from government and remove their ideas from schools as a form of repression? Atheism aims to repress various religious influences on society, like it or not, that is our goal. Do you think once Secularists have removed Religion from schools and government that they will stop there?

Its a constant juggling act and certainly not as black and white as you make out. So you feel "well we've repressed them a little, sure we might as well go the whole hog?" The simple fact is that no matter what laws you make everyone is going to feel repressed up to a point.

Please don't tell me what my "goal" is. You make us sound like fascists.

Then please detail how you imagine the secular world you hope for will look like? You never answered my previous question either. Would you be ok with various religions setting up their own non-secular schools to teach their children their beliefs alongside their normal education?

As long as they DID receive a normal education I'd have no problem with it. In fact i would defend their very right to do so. Everyone I know had a religious upbringing and A: they are all well adjusted adults and B: are not church goers. Its all about degrees.

Then please detail how you imagine the secular world you hope for will look like?

Could you answer your own question? And tells how you see it working out?

Goduznt Xzst

uncleoswald wrote: »

I agree as you can see from my amended post. But unfortunately society isn't all one agreeing body. And you have to take others opinions belief into account otherwise how can you expect others to respect yours?

What I find curious about your amendment is that you say it's "up to social welfare to decide". Tell me, where does social services get its criteria for deciding if a parent is fit to raise their children?

uncleoswald wrote: »

Its not ideal, and underminds the facts that they are learning in school but its a price (a small one) we must pay for living in a non-oppressive state....

As long as they DID receive a normal education I'd have no problem with it. In fact i would defend their very right to do so. Everyone I know had a religious upbringing and A: they are all well adjusted adults and B: are not church goers. Its all about degrees.

So really, nothing would change for the children unfortunate to be born into religious families. They would be taught that their beliefs are fact at home and then go to their religious schools to have these opinions taught to them also by their teachers.

Would you have a problem with Religiously funded Universities that teach creationism?

uncleoswald wrote: »

Please don't tell me what my "goal" is. You make us sound like fascists.

Would you prefer I use the word hope instead? Saying the goal of Atheists is to separate Church and State and to make education secular is not "fascist" in the least.

uncleoswald wrote: »

Could you answer your own question? And tells how you see it working out?

I can't predict how it will work out, and I never asked that of you either. You seem to be very defensive against a lot of the ideas I have, but yet you have not structured you ideas into what you hope the world your children will grow up in will look like.

If you know why my ideas are wrong, then it would help if I understood fully what your hopes for the future actually look like.

Atheists tend to like to say "separate church from state" or "secularize education" without going into detail about how they think this society will co-exist with religion, or how they imagine their goals hopes will be realized.

MrPudding

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

ROFL!

Overblood wrote: »

The extremist muslims orders are to kill me, the infidel, and they would be delighted in doing so. So what the hell, why not fight fire wth fire?

Otherwise I'm a good guy:)

Oh oh, is that like that "an eye for an eye" thing? Now, where did I hear that...?

MrP

uncleoswald

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What I find curious about your amendment is that you say it's "up to social welfare to decide". Tell me, where does social services get its criteria for deciding if a parent is fit to raise their children?

We vote for a government that puts in place rules and laws that are guided by the morals of the society. Its not perfect but I think its a little better then letting you decide as seems to be your ideal.

Overblood

MrPudding wrote: »

Oh oh, is that like that "an eye for an eye" thing? Now, where did I hear that...?

Dunno, lots of places probably. I know that Soulfly has a song called "eye for an eye". Maybe that's where you heard it?

ZondaChai

I want my children to grow up in a future society where all world religions have been combined into one, I think I will call it Tolerantism. The principle of this religion, is simply that you can believe what you want to believe and nobody will chastise you. No matter how many gods or how little, no matter what history your faith has, what conflicts it has caused, it will be embraced and respected. The tolerantists will breed a new bigotless world of love and acceptance. Of course this can only be achieved after purging the earth of those greedy Jews, dirty Muslims, and scheming Scientologists.

Goduznt Xzst

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I said that this would be a case for social services to handle though depending on the severity.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The ideologies that society deems dangerous to itself and the minds of its children.

uncleoswald wrote: »

We vote for a government that puts in place rules and laws that are guided by the morals of the society. Its not perfect but I think its a little better then letting you decide as seems to be your ideal.

Yes because everything I have said thus far has led you to this conclusion

Just because this is my idea does not mean that I want to be the one that defines what is and is not acceptable. I would hope society would do that. Like I said I am open to discussion on my ideas but it would be helpful for you to first express yours first rather than just trying to make accusations about me personally. I do not have aspirations of becoming a tyrannical dictator (although going by some definitions, being an Atheist seems to equip me with the right qualities for it :rolleyes:)

I want to open up the debate in regards to how society will look, if the various secular groups get their wishes for a government devoid of religious beliefs, enforced by law, and also if the education system removes the teaching of bible stories as fact. What then? Do we allow the various religious groups to segregate their children into schools that teach their beliefs? Do we enforce a secular education on all children?

eoin5

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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.

I dont have a solution. Its a form of abuse that I dont think can be stopped unfortunately, but that certainly doesnt make it right. Parenting doesnt have to be filling your childs head with irrational unjustifiable beliefs as facts because you feel you have the right to.

eoin5

Jakkass wrote: »

You must consider most things that parents teach their children to be child abuse then.

This isnt teaching a kid that they should brush their teeth because otherwise their teeth will fall out. This is getting your child to recite the apostolic creed at mass every week so they just accept it.

Jakkass wrote: »

No it isn't any more than parents teach their children the distinction between what is right and wrong. Or should we just let them run loose and then determine ethics for themselves.

Right or wrong is something we all have an innate sense of, its how were here now. It develops well in most cases through positive stimulus, as soon as theyre old enough we need to help them to understand rather than hardwire stuff into their brains.

Rev Hellfire

eoin5 wrote: »

I dont have a solution. Its a form of abuse that I dont think can be stopped unfortunately, but that certainly doesnt make it right. Parenting doesnt have to be filling your childs head with irrational unjustifiable beliefs as facts because you feel you have the right to.

But that statement makes no sense, most parent we can assume educate their children to the best of their ability. We can assume that what you see as an irrational belief is not so to them, luckly we haven't reached the state where the thought police are in effect.
I'm curious how do you intend to determine what you can tell your children as you raise them, will you raise them in the manner you feel will best equip them for life or will you stand-back and allow others to dictate what your children should believe, least some poorly thought out belief of yours contaminates them ? I mean if these parents have got it so wrong how can we assume you wont either ?

uncleoswald

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Like I said I am open to discussion on my ideas but it would be helpful for you to first express yours first rather than just trying to make accusations about me personally.

In my first post I actually did express my views and hopes and certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything. In fact I generally agreed with you and it was later I questioned what I felt was your lax views on personal freedoms and choice. I do hope for a future without religion but I don't want to create laws that in my opinion infringe on the right of the parent to raise their child how they see fit within reasonable limits. We may as well ban Santa while we're at it.

eoin5

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But that statement makes no sense, most parent we can assume educate their children to the best of their ability. We can assume that what you see as an irrational belief is not so to them, luckly we haven't reached the state where the thought police are in effect.
I'm curious how do you intend to determine what you can tell your children as you raise them, will you raise them in the manner you feel will best equip them for life or will you stand-back and allow others to dictate what your children should believe, least some poorly thought out belief of yours contaminates them ? I mean if these parents have got it so wrong how can we assume you wont either ?

Yes the subject matter is obviously important to a degree. Teaching your kids that black people are inferior to white people is an extreme example, but along the same line of thinking (not comparing like for like of course) teaching them that there is definitely a hell is categorically wrong as there is no rational basis, almost no benefit, and much damage caused. Again I've no solution for that, I hope we can steer away from it as much as possible.

But my main point is not about subject matter, its about the manner and the ethos of education. This idea that some parents have of their kids being like clean slates to chip away into is not a good one. I'm sure in their own heads religious parents views are logical but if theyre not logically expressing them to their kids as a suggestion (in the same way brushing their teeth is a suggestion if they want to stay healthy and keep their pearlies) then theres something wrong in my book.

The best way to prepare them? Its a million pound question that one. I definitely advertise teaching kids skeptical thinking as a safeguard against anyone else be it school or telly imprinting too much on them.

philologos

eoin5 wrote: »

Right or wrong is something we all have an innate sense of, its how were here now. It develops well in most cases through positive stimulus, as soon as theyre old enough we need to help them to understand rather than hardwire stuff into their brains.

We're living in a world of rape, drugs, theft, murder, and so on, and yet you say that all people have an innate sense of morality? Somewhere one must see that this falls flat before we even take that much consideration of it?

Also, the Scripture doesn't help people to understand? That really isn't an objective reality, but rather a subjective opinion. You know well what mine is.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

We're living in a world of rape, drugs, theft, murder, and so on, and yet you say that all people have an innate sense of morality? Somewhere one must see that this falls flat before we even take that much consideration of it?

The fact that we have evolved to live in a modern, mostly very safe society rather than stay killing each other out on the savannah strongly suggests that humanity is naturally more co-operative than unco-operative.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also, the Scripture doesn't help people to understand?

No, the text of the bible is a highly misleading series of stories which take some of the difficult questions of life ("what am I here for? why does evil exist?" etc) and gives answers which, above much else, frequently seem convincing to that section of the population that feels that humanity is a naturally unco-operative.

Rather than helping people to gain a real understanding of the world they live in, it simply tells people what they want to hear. And since there are so many stories about so many things, it's not difficult for each individual believer to find a few stories that resonate, thereby adding some degree of credibility to the rest of them.

eoin5

Jakkass wrote: »

We're living in a world of rape, drugs, theft, murder, and so on, and yet you say that all people have an innate sense of morality? Somewhere one must see that this falls flat before we even take that much consideration of it?

Yes we do have an innate sense of right and wrong. Its obviously somewhat different for everyone. Its also not impossible to act against it.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Overblood wrote: »

The extremist muslims orders are to kill me, the infidel, and they would be delighted in doing so. So what the hell, why not fight fire wth fire?

Otherwise I'm a good guy:)

Maybe we should have blown up Ireland to get rid of the IRA. Or maybe blow up the USA to get rid of the klan and white supremacism. I hear there are extremists in Africa too, maybe we should blow up Africa.

Or maybe blowing people up isn't the solution to world's problems. After all, don't you want to show the religious extremists that your morals are better than theirs?

philologos

eoin5 wrote: »

Yes we do have an innate sense of right and wrong. Its obviously somewhat different for everyone. Its also not impossible to act against it.

Who is to say what is right and wrong then? Surely those two words cannot be defined without some form of universal measure to dictate their meaning?

Overheal

I want to see future generations growing up in a world full of challenges. The minute we stop pushing ourselves forward is the minute we become extinct as a species.

I could sit here and say I want them to live in a world with no war slavery disease or poverty but then what would people do with themselves with nothing to compel them to better their situation?

eoin5

Jakkass wrote: »

Who is to say what is right and wrong then? Surely those two words cannot be defined without some form of universal measure to dictate their meaning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism is worth a read if you havent already.

philologos

Moral relativism forces people with any form of genuine moral compass to be a hypocrite. In cases such as genocide, people would lean to say that it is absolutely wrong, when infact it is morally relative to the perpetrator if you subscribe to relative morality. So the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 could have been very right for the people who did it and very wrong for you. That's the best you can do on a situation like that.