Question for Atheists/Agnostics with Kids

[MF Perm]

There are some atheists who don't believe for what I think are silly reasons and haven't educated themselves on religions and religious beliefs, those kind of atheists could fall under that definition of belief.

This is the problem I have with some atheist arguments, that their point is only contrary to the Bible. All of their counterpoints and arguments are strictly in relation to 1 religion ( really, and it's father and offshoot cousin religion ), with phrases such as "Well if God exists then why does __________ happen?"
It's generally a selfish argument positing their circumstances against the realm of the unknown.


I think the proper question to be asked is, If some extraordinary creative entity exists and has a divine plan for the world, why would they speak to / favor / protect etc etc one race / region / prophet? Why is dogma so contradictory?


But of course anyone that practices nearly every religious belief is only practicing a selfish imagination that because they perform X act or spread Y word they will ultimately be rewarded for their deeds. Religion doesn't spread good will or embolden people to act on the basis of humanity, and ( here's comes the point relation ) it only teaches children that they should only do good things because some unknown authority is watching them constantly and they will be rewarded for their good deeds. Fuck compassion for the sake of being compassionate, do it because you want to get into Heaven. That's a terrible lesson, and we see how perverted it's become through the ages and in the Middle East right now.


Any sane, compassionate person would at some point explain to their children about all belief systems and the fallacies of it's followers and attribute the acts of charity and compassion to the human beings and not the dogma they follow. This is the school of reason, just "letting your kids find out on their own" is not an option in my opinion. Because of society they will eventually become confused as to why all these kids around them talk about "church" and "God" and "Jesus" and "Jews" and so forth and so on. I think as an atheist parent it is your responsibility to instill your children with reason and educate them with passion about the world, people, culture, and belief.


If from that point on and with your guidance they decide to fall into the hopeless hole of religion then you can do nothing more than love them fiercely
and wish for the best. It's just a shame to me that people become atheists because of the supposed unfairness of what they were taught to worship over the onset of reason as to why these beliefs cannot be true.

[Demosthenes11]

^ agree with everything but the "hopeless hole" part

A belief in a higher entity is not a hopeless hole, but a hole filled with more hope than an athiest could ever imagine

[Blarg]

^ agree with everything but the "hopeless hole" part

A belief in a higher entity is not a hopeless hole, but a hole filled with more hope than an athiest could ever imagine

The way you said that makes it seem that those who believe in god view life in such a better fashion.

And what makes this hope so good? Should I be jealous of this hope that I could never imagine? You can turn it around and say that when a theist works towards something extraordinary, some sort of large accomplishment, they very commonly thank god for giving them the power to accomplish it. The theist believes that god helped them get where the are because they are not strong enough to do it on their own, the atheist who accomplished the same thing knows that he did it with his own intelligence/willpower/strength. Is their feeling of self something that the theist could never imagine?

[Demosthenes11]

It's still personal accomplishment, you just thank god for giving you the strength. It does not diminish the amount you put forth or the journey you went on, for it was obviously still a personal choice you made. You don't believe god was the sole reason for achievement. Individualism is not lost on a theist.

[Blarg]

If god gave you the strength then you wouldn't have been able to do it yourself. I never said god was the sole reason, but god is often given credit for helping someone. Believe in yourself whenever you do something cause you did it on your own.

Besides I'm sure god really cares about helping an actor win an Oscar, as if he moved the judges hands a little bit to tick off another box. This doesn't really have to do with what you said, but I hate when sports teams/athletes and actors thank god for their accomplishments, its so egotistical and deluded.

[Neosutra]

^ agree with everything but the "hopeless hole" part

A belief in a higher entity is not a hopeless hole, but a hole filled with more hope than an athiest could ever imagine

I have to say I laughed pretty had when I saw this, as my first thought was you were being sarcastic and joking... but then I realized your serious.

First, one thing you forget is most atheists were once theists, and thus have experienced life with and w/o beleif in a higher diety. That being said, from personal experience, and the experience of every other atheist here, there is no "incomprehensible" boost of hope and awesomeness that you get as a theist, that is somehow unataineable as an atheist. As stated before, your beleif simply gives you a false since of comfort, as convincing yourself the invisible man is there to save you reduces the feeling that your alone. And as stated before, atheists prefer to find comfort in friends/family/loved ones, then in mythical creatures. To add to that, you have blargs good point of atheist's accomplishmenst being completed by atheists, while theists must give credit to their deity for all their accomplishments, because apparently theists are too weak do anything on their own. You see, there isnt some "hope filled hole", there is instead a drug like dependence on this make believe friend developed by a constantly reinforced stigma that you just CANT do anything w/o it. Its actually quite sad, and the worse part is, youve become so accustomed to thanking this imaginary friend for eveything you do, that you assume that people w/o imaginary friends are missing somethign great in life.

Go get god to help you post a better response next time, make sure he puts a litle more thought into it next time.

[Norelco]

Sorry to be off-topic here, but damn Miz, I'm incredibly sorry for your loss.

[Isiolia]

Now onto whoever said that Atheism is a belief in the same way theism is. Is not collecting stamps a hobby with that logic too? The flaw of that reasoning is that you assume that god existing and god not existing are equally likely and atheists are believing a certain side while the other remains somewhat likely, this is not the case with any atheist who doesn't believe based on evidence and logic. There are some atheists who don't believe for what I think are silly reasons and haven't educated themselves on religions and religious beliefs, those kind of atheists could fall under that definition of belief.

The way I've seen this explained is more that, as an atheist, you are making an assumption that you possess all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea of a supreme being in any shape or form. Regardless of the relative level of knowledge you might possess compared to other people, fact is, everyone's scope of knowledge is somewhat limited.

Both theists and atheists believe what they do because of what their feelings and logic dictate. They don't leave room for being wrong, despite that their knowledge represents an infinitesimally small speck of what their is to know.
If someone falls into the camp of that they don't know if a supreme being exists, or that it's impossible to prove one way or another, then they're agnostic. Atheism, at least as I understand it and the dictionary defines it, implies a conclusion, one that you can't entirely make without faith.


Personally, I would approach things like that with kids. What I think is damaging is not so much the faiths themselves, but the nature of religions and atheism to dismiss other viewpoints. Regardless of what is taught at home or school, I think the goal of parents should be to bring up kids who think for themselves, but respect the opinions of others as well.

[Demosthenes11]

^ agree with everything but the "hopeless hole" part

A belief in a higher entity is not a hopeless hole, but a hole filled with more hope than an athiest could ever imagine

I have to say I laughed pretty had when I saw this, as my first thought was you were being sarcastic and joking... but then I realized your serious.

First, one thing you forget is most atheists were once theists, and thus have experienced life with and w/o beleif in a higher diety. That being said, from personal experience, and the experience of every other atheist here, there is no "incomprehensible" boost of hope and awesomeness that you get as a theist, that is somehow unataineable as an atheist. As stated before, your beleif simply gives you a false since of comfort, as convincing yourself the invisible man is there to save you reduces the feeling that your alone. And as stated before, atheists prefer to find comfort in friends/family/loved ones, then in mythical creatures. To add to that, you have blargs good point of atheist's accomplishmenst being completed by atheists, while theists must give credit to their deity for all their accomplishments, because apparently theists are too weak do anything on their own. You see, there isnt some "hope filled hole", there is instead a drug like dependence on this make believe friend developed by a constantly reinforced stigma that you just CANT do anything w/o it. Its actually quite sad, and the worse part is, youve become so accustomed to thanking this imaginary friend for eveything you do, that you assume that people w/o imaginary friends are missing somethign great in life.

Go get god to help you post a better response next time, make sure he puts a litle more thought into it next time.

Possibly the biggest dickhead response I've read in BG history.

[quannum]

you possess all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea of a supreme being in any shape or form.

do you possess all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea of Thor, Zeus, Wotan, the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster?

No you don't, technically, but you don't go around saying "i don't know" about them. I think it's a better idea to be skeptical of claims of supernaturalism that have no evidence. It's not the same as guessing whether your neighbor owns a dog or not.

Also agnosticism is not a mutually exclusive choice. you can be an agostic theist or agnostic atheist. People have faith in zeus, not knowlege of zeus.

[Maguspk]

Neosutra you are obviously right about everything, why does anyone bother to argue with you?

The hope Demos was referring to was simply knowing someone/something would be there to help you and "back you up" so to speak. You tried to pervert what he said and turn it into a self worth argument, but really the hope is simply comfort in knowing someone is one your side.

The more you reply the more I start to hate you, you're being such a cunt

[Kaelan]

I want to make a distinction here that I don't think anyone has made so far on either side of the argument, and I think it's very important. It's the distinction between God and Religion: Religion isn't God and God isn't Religion.

Religion is a set of stories, customs and practices. It's also how one group approaches of the idea of God(is there one, are there many, what can and can't they do, etc.). Religion has absolutely nothing to do with logic or critical thinking. This is where belief comes in.

God is a hypothesis. It's a metaphysical statement about the nature of the universe. It has nothing to do with individual stories or practices and very much does have to do with logic(albeit bad logic) and critical thinking. In other words, God by itself is strictly a subject of academic discussion. It is exactly like your view on Economics or Politics, has absolutely nothing to do with religion and shouldn't be treated or viewed as such.

Putting that aside, since I'm an atheist myself and I think a lot of people are getting the wrong idea here, I want to clarify a few things. I'm just quoting Isiolia's post because it was the last one, but it's intended towards several people that were making reference to atheism.

Atheism disagrees with both God and Religion, but in different ways.

Atheism disagrees with religion because it's considered (as several people may have already mentioned) a very bad and ineffective way to approach life in general, with the negatives of it far outweighing the positives. In addition to that, it's possible to replace all of the positives(marriage, funerals, etc.) with non-religious equivalents of the same that are just as good at doing what they're supposed to do. The general idea is "religion is detrimental and isn't necessary".

Atheism disagrees with God because God is a very, very unlikely hypothesis. While nobody can prove that God doesn't exist, you can easily see the reason for saying so if you take the "celestial teapot" argument: A scientist (remembering that God is a metaphysical statement and has nothing to do with religious faith) comes in and makes an argument, saying that revolving around the Sun is an invisible pink teapot. You can't see it, there are no ways to see it using any of the technology we have today and there is no evidence whatsoever that it's there. But nevertheless, this person is absolutely convinced it's there, "because"(not because anything, just because).

As a scientist, is it likely that this teapot exists? No.
Is it completely impossible that this teapot exists? No.
Does this mean it is reasonable, then, to believe in said teapot? Not really.
But it's impossible to disprove, doesn't that mean it's equally likely to exist and to not exist? Absolutely not, by far.
And that's the problem.

The way I've seen this explained is more that, as an atheist, you are making an assumption that you possess all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea of a supreme being in any shape or form. Regardless of the relative level of knowledge you might possess compared to other people, fact is, everyone's scope of knowledge is somewhat limited.

As much as some more enthusiastic atheists would like to agree with this, that's not really the case.

Being atheist has nothing to do with having any supreme knowledge of the universe. We already have enough knowledge to know, scientifically, that while God is not impossible, it is very (in, fact, extremely) unlikely. Using the knowledge we do have, we can confidently say that the conditions required for the existence of God are so improbable and far-fetched, that the probability can be considered negligible(not meaning impossible, but meaning it's not a satisfactory conclusion to the problem). That doesn't mean we know for sure God doesn't exist. But that does mean we have several scientific hypothesis about the nature of the universe that are much(and I emphasize this) more likely than the hypothesis of God.

Being atheist does leave the room for being wrong: that's exactly why so many ask for evidence when seriously challenged with claims about the existence of God.

That's all I gotta say about it. I'm not getting into the argument of what you should believe in because with the exception of a few people, it's a very pointless argument. As far as the OP's question, I'd try to show my kid, as soon as he's old enough to start getting in contact with religions, what atheism is and why people do it and do the same thing for all major religions, then tell him what I think about it. I'd also tell him to not worry about it too much if he doesn't really understand it yet and just remember to not just agree with things because someone told him to. I'd make sure to explain it a little more properly once he's old enough to actually understand most of it. Regardless of what I tel him exactly though, the biggest emphasis I'd make from day one would be for him to know that he make sure he tries to understand things before agreeing with them. Get informed about things first (the crucial part people often forget), then question everything(including what he was taught as a kid). I'm nowhere near old enough to be a parent so I have no idea on how exactly I'd go about to do this (nor do I think I'm qualified really to even speculate on it), but that's basically the general idea of how things would go.

[Neosutra]

Neosutra you are obviously right about everything, why does anyone bother to argue with you?

The hope Demos was referring to was simply knowing someone/something would be there to help you and "back you up" so to speak. You tried to pervert what he said and turn it into a self worth argument, but really the hope is simply comfort in knowing someone is one your side.

The more you reply the more I start to hate you, you're being such a cunt

And as stated, atheist prefer to put that comfort in the realm of reality, friends, family, loved ones. Fictional support systems never hold up when you need them. And yes, I am being a bit antagonistic in my responses to demon, as I am trying to motivate him to put a bit more thought into his posts, as most of them are intellectuallty offensive. And just because I brush aside many of the arguments presented for religion, doesnt mean I brush aside everything. Its just that most of the arguments presented are complete bullshit. I have a low tolerance for bullshit, thus call it trash when I see it. The fact that you cant have a debate without hating the other person when they call your bullshit is your own problem. I have no ill feelings to anyone here, but that doesnt mean I'm going to sugar coat my response when you dont give me enough respect to post a reply that takes more then 30 seconds on thought.

Cry some more for me.

And to:
Isiolia wrote:
The way I've seen this explained is more that, as an atheist, you are making an assumption that you possess all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea of a supreme being in any shape or form. Regardless of the relative level of knowledge you might possess compared to other people, fact is, everyone's scope of knowledge is somewhat limited.

Atheists do not assert themselves omnipotent and all knowing, but as stated (several times throughout this topic), the complete lack of evidence for a theory is scientifically evidence in itself against the theory. Thus we are within our rights to say "there is no god", for the only evidence in the debate is the complete lack of evidence itself.

[Isiolia]

do you possess all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea of Thor, Zeus, Wotan, the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster?

No you don't, technically, but you don't go around saying "i don't know" about them. I think it's a better idea to be skeptical of claims of supernaturalism that have no evidence. It's not the same as guessing whether your neighbor owns a dog or not.

Also agnosticism is not a mutually exclusive choice. you can be an agostic theist or agnostic atheist. People have faith in zeus, not knowlege of zeus.

Never said I was able to dismiss those thing per-se...however, they're also generally much more defined, smaller things than the general idea of a supreme being or the supernatural.

You can, say, dismiss the idea of Santa Claus bringing presents when you watch your parents place them all under the tree. It's much harder to say for certain that there are no extra-dimensional beings out there somewhere in the universe that might be a higher form of life than homo sapiens, or even had a hand in life being cultivated on Earth.

I can appreciate the position of saying agnosticism isn't exclusive. I simply see it the other way around. People lump plenty of different forms of Christianity under one classification based on simple core beliefs. To me, if you're looking at things with "it's impossible to be sure, but..." then that places you somewhere in the spectrum of agnosticism.

Being atheist has nothing to do with having any supreme knowledge of the universe. We already have enough knowledge to know, scientifically, that while God is not impossible, it is very (in, fact, extremely) unlikely. Using the knowledge we do have, we can confidently say that the conditions required for the existence of God are so improbable and far-fetched, that the probability can be considered negligible(not meaning impossible, but meaning it's not a satisfactory conclusion to the problem). That doesn't mean we know for sure God doesn't exist. But that does mean we have several scientific hypothesis about the nature of the universe that are much(and I emphasize this) more likely than the hypothesis of God.

Being atheist does leave the room for being wrong: that's exactly why so many ask for evidence when seriously challenged with claims about the existence of God.

I see it more that a scientific, evidence-based standpoint implies more of an agnostic viewpoint than it would an atheistic. It's not so much the philosophy as the label put on it. Perhaps confused because, like other philosophies, atheism has varying degrees. Typically though it implies not just recognizing a lack of evidence, but a rejection of the idea of gods.

Honestly, it's a larger debate. Check the section on the wiki about strong vs weak atheism and you'll find the exact thing mentioned there about theism/agnosticism/atheism. Some believe that it's an absence of believe, others that it requires a bit more.

[Mizango]

Sorry to be off-topic here, but damn Miz, I'm incredibly sorry for your loss.

<3

[MF Perm]

^ agree with everything but the "hopeless hole" part

A belief in a higher entity is not a hopeless hole, but a hole filled with more hope than an athiest could ever imagine

A little bit late for this train but, I never said belief or the search was hopeless - I said religion is hopeless. Religion is a series of arbitrary restrictions placed on a population so that those in the upper tiers of that hierarchy can control, manipulate, and change at will ( or change interpretation ) dogma to fit their needs - all in return for a promised reward to the followers that has never been proven to exist.

That's hopeless, the blind following the blind so to speak.

Since I've made the same mistake of rushing to comment or rebut a post without grasping the weight of each word I won't make sassy insult, but I never took a swipe at individual belief, it was at organized religion. The reason for this is individual belief evolves on its own without constraint and I would like to believe that through individual belief one will come to the conclusion when provided and having experienced evidence to the contrary of their first thoughts on the mysteries of life, they will eventually realize that whatever creative force led to our existence is something so unfathomable and great that it cannot be tainted with the faults of humanity nor its greatness. It is likely oblivious to our existence and its own and carries about naturally as the rest of the universe does.

But no one on this planet wants to think that once life is over, they are over. So it's natural that as our imaginations can develop vampires and dwarves and dragons and demons and aliens and so on and so forth, it can imagine an immortal soul and a benificient ruler to preside over it and the others. The hard part I have is how so many people, without evidence, can convince themselves that their religion is the right one when compared to others.

[quannum]

do you possess all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea of Thor, Zeus, Wotan, the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster?

No you don't, technically, but you don't go around saying "i don't know" about them. I think it's a better idea to be skeptical of claims of supernaturalism that have no evidence. It's not the same as guessing whether your neighbor owns a dog or not.

Never said I was able to dismiss those thing per-se...however, they're also generally much more defined, smaller things than the general idea of a supreme being or the supernatural.

If you exclude the tooth fairy from that list, then no ... supreme being/supernatural is exactly what they are. by even suggesting there's a general idea of a supreme being, you've already cut off polytheism.

You can, say, dismiss the idea of Santa Claus bringing presents when you watch your parents place them all under the tree. It's much harder to say for certain that there are no extra-dimensional beings out there somewhere in the universe that might be a higher form of life than homo sapiens, or even had a hand in life being cultivated on Earth.

from that example, the most you can epistemologically say is that santa claus didn't put those presents under your tree, you haven't dismissed his existance. Santa claus, as currently defined, does not obey the laws of nature, faster than light, shape shifting, frictionless, semi-omniscient. he's still just as likely to exist as god or allah or zeus. the most you can hope to achieve is to disprove parts of a definition through contradiction. obect X possesses quality A and quality B. quality A is XOR quality B, therefore obect X does not posses quality A and B.

Also agnosticism is not a mutually exclusive choice. you can be an agostic theist or agnostic atheist. People have faith in zeus, not knowlege of zeus.

I can appreciate the position of saying agnosticism isn't exclusive. I simply see it the other way around. People lump plenty of different forms of Christianity under one classification based on simple core beliefs. To me, if you're looking at things with "it's impossible to be sure, but..." then that places you somewhere in the spectrum of agnosticism.

fine. i was talking about weak agnosticism, you're talking about strong agnosticism (which is a positive claim requiring proof).

the point was that you have dismissed zeus without "all the knowledge necessary to completely dismiss the idea". As have 99.999% of the current population. i dismiss xtian god and muslim allah just as easily. nobody gets their panties in a bunch or demands respect for zeus, not quite the case for the other two, that's the only difference.

[Isiolia]

You're confusing the concept of a being or beings with specific ideas regarding the nature and characteristics of them. Much like the concepts of "god" and religion, they're two separate things.

If someone hands me a Mountain Dew and claims it to be the cure for Aids, I won't believe them. That doesn't necessarily mean I write off the possibility that a cure exists.
A being with the properties you gave for Santa Claus might exist. I don't know. What I do know is, if it exists, it doesn't bring me presents and steal my milk and cookies. Expeditions to the North Pole have yet to uncover its workshop. Ergo...it does not meet the described nature of Santa Claus.

Atheism, though it's fluctuated in definition over the years, tends to mean the disbelief of any god of any kind. Not just that someone doesn't believe in the personal God of the new testament, or Odin, or Gaia, or whatever else. Don't believe in 'em? Fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a particular view.

Simply saying that having reasonable doubt the existence of a god is one thing, and taking the stance that there definitely isn't one (or many) are different things. The latter, at least to me, is a step of faith. Just like believing in a particular version of supreme being, or beings, would be.

[Neosutra]

You're confusing the concept of a being or beings with specific ideas regarding the nature and characteristics of them. Much like the concepts of "god" and religion, they're two separate things.

If someone hands me a Mountain Dew and claims it to be the cure for Aids, I won't believe them. That doesn't necessarily mean I write off the possibility that a cure exists.
A being with the properties you gave for Santa Claus might exist. I don't know. What I do know is, if it exists, it doesn't bring me presents and steal my milk and cookies. Expeditions to the North Pole have yet to uncover its workshop. Ergo...it does not meet the described nature of Santa Claus.

Atheism, though it's fluctuated in definition over the years, tends to mean the disbelief of any god of any kind. Not just that someone doesn't believe in the personal God of the new testament, or Odin, or Gaia, or whatever else. Don't believe in 'em? Fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a particular view.

Simply saying that having reasonable doubt the existence of a god is one thing, and taking the stance that there definitely isn't one (or many) are different things. The latter, at least to me, is a step of faith. Just like believing in a particular version of supreme being, or beings, would be.

I understand what your getting at and would agree with your sentiment. I think the dividing point is when atheist say "there is no god", I dont think it is meant as a defining statement to the impossibility of higher forms of life, but rather the direct assertation to the improbability any "god" that has ever been defined by humanity. Thus when I say with all firmness that "god does not exist", I am referring to dieties specifically created within earth based religious philosophy. This does however extend to the concept of one single omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient being that started everything, as while housing the charactersitics of many earth based dogma and not alluding to a specific religion, it still lends itself to being brushed aside based on improbability and lack of evidence. I like your sig btw, is that from the anime "Blood"?

[Demosthenes11]

The belief in God, for those that do believe, needs no evidence or acts of God to continue the belief. It is a personal belief that you are a part of something greater than what appears. A comfort