Question for Atheists/Agnostics with Kids

[Kuya]

Some very smart things.

QFT.

Now to catch up and read this thread from page 2.

[Neosutra]

Not going to make a quote train here, so Ill just address a few of the key points you noted upon:

1. I disagree that it is possible to have this fictitious support system without adding in the harmful side effects. They are not mutually exlusive. You cant take a prescription painkiller to ease a headache without being weary of the sideeffects on the bottle.

2. Yes, dissection of the beliefs presented in this thread are relevant in analysis of validity of beliefs (For the 401298475th time). I will continue to restate this as long as you continue to antagonize me with names such as smug and self righteous in a vain attempt to categorize my argument as being antagonistic for simply challenging the lack of evidence set forth herein this topic. Think about this one for a little bit before you respond with yet another "your being rude, dont challenge people's beliefs, thats mean!". We have already established a hundred times in this topic that isnt the case, move along now.

3. "I come off intolerant to others beleifs": Yes, yes I do. Because following the logical path of validation of belief systems as proper method for what/how belief systems are introduced to children and thus having and intellectual debate on the subject, you better damn well believe Im going to shoot you down if you come here in with no evidence/reason/or logical premis for your beliefs. I dont give a rats ass what you actually believe in life, but when you come here, be ready to justify it.

Havent you realized that I find it equally offensive that you/others insist on continuing to demand that me/everyone else respect a set of theories regardless of their validity? That you/others insist on pissing on the scientific method and the basic laws of debate(present your perspective and then defend it with EVIDENCE), and that you waste my/our time with nonsense and conjecture when everyone else goes out of their way to present data for their case? You REALLY havent realized its equally/more insulting to do what your doing then for me to be a bit antagonistic? (And if you havent figured out the antagonistic responses at the end of each post is indeed bait to push you a bit into making your argument a bit more solid, your more dissapointing then I expected). Im just trying to get your viewpoint out in the open, backed with actual evidence and reason, rather then post after post of "i believe this, so there!".

Ok?

[Kuya]

So... you're just arguing because you don't like religion then?

[Neosutra]

So... you're just arguing because you don't like religion then?

No. We are arguing because we dont like the arguments being put forth for religion. There is a clear difference.

Is it offensive to ask that members of a debate contribute equally? At the moment its going like this:

Theist: "States Opinion"
Atheist: "States counter-opinion and backs with reason/evidence"
Theist: "States Opinion"
Atheist: "States counter-opinion and backs with reason/evidence..asks Theist to do the same"
Theist: "States Opinion"
Atheist: "States counter-opinion and backs with reason/evidence ... asks Theist again to do the same"
Theist: "States Opinion and calls the Atheist mean for presenting evidence/reason"
Atheist: "States counter-opinion and backs with reason/evidence ... /facepalm"

[Kuya]

So... you're just arguing because you don't like religion then?

No. We are arguing because we dont like the arguments being put forth for religion. There is a clear difference.

You don't like people arguing agaisnt your views? My i hadn't noticed.

You keep trying to apply scientific methods to an ideology, two systems which are exact opposites. No self respecting scientist would meddle in religion because there would be no point. You can't prove or disprove the abstract. However you seem to have taken it upon yourself to be the saviour of humanity and protect us from big bad religion.

What opinions are you coutering exactly? Lets not forget you have hardly countered them in a manner even resembling a person with respect for debate.

[Blarg]

It seems that any questioning of religious beliefs is seen as more rude/condescending then it really is simply because religious belief has been given a free ride for a long time. It should really be no more safe from questioning than any other belief. If someone believes there was no holocaust, and it brings them comfort to think this way, very few people would simply respect their belief and not challenge it based on the happiness it brings to the person.

[Neosutra]

So... you're just arguing because you don't like religion then?

No. We are arguing because we dont like the arguments being put forth for religion. There is a clear difference.

You don't like people arguing agaisnt your views? My i hadn't noticed.

You keep trying to apply scientific methods to an ideology, two systems which are exact opposites. No self respecting scientist would meddle in religion because there would be no point. You can't prove or disprove the abstract. However you seem to have taken it upon yourself to be the saviour of humanity and protect us from big bad religion.

I actually enjoy people disagreeing with my viewpoints alot, it gives me something to learn/grow from. I just ask that some standard be put on those viewpoints.

And do I get a cape for this "saviour of humanity" job? Cause it seems pretty easy if all I have to do is apply a basic logical standard to theories.


edit: Blarg said it right.

[Tristam]

I don't really know how tangential some of this stuff is, as if you're raising a child, all of the situations we've addressed here will eventually come up very early in the child's life. A child is going to want to know where they came from, and how things work, and your answer to that is going to be important, even if it's "I don't know"

If that answer is "God is responsible for etc." Then many people believe you are fundamentally flawing that child's ability to reason and use logic for natural processes that can be explained by science. Many would go so far as to blame religion for the US' poor science and math recent history. It may seem innocent enough to comfort a child with the belief that there is a God that loves them, but if you begin to use that belief to claim intimate knowledge of a natural process, I would say that does more harm than good. Unfortunately the reality is that happens all too often, or we wouldn't have such a poor track record in public opinion of natural sciences (example: fewer than 50% of the US population "believes" in evolution.) This really does bother atheists, and we consider it fundamentally important that one use reason.

In short: I believe one must tread very carefully with religion and raising a child, and Neosutra's opinions, though abraisive and argumentative in nature, are with merit insofar as there is a fundamental divide in faith vs. reason, the two are not entirely compatible. Maybe even totally incompatible. And though he dosen't directly relate the argument to children, it's going to come up one way or the other. (I hope my characterization is correct Neo, I don't want to put words in your mouth.)

In a perfect world, one's faith wouldn't conflict with the natural world. I think Ivve's beliefs fit well into that category, and as I've said before, not enough christians think like this. It's not that atheists hate religion (some do), but we do think it is dangerous in most real-world cases to a child's mental development.

Hope that's relevent enough.

[Kuya]

It seems that any questioning of religious beliefs is seen as more rude/condescending then it really is simply because religious belief has been given a free ride for a long time. It should really be no more safe from questioning than any other belief. If someone believes there was no holocaust, and it brings them comfort to think this way, very few people would simply respect their belief and not challenge it based on the happiness it brings to the person.

You don't accomplish a thing with trying to rip away religion from people in such an antagonizing manner. The only thing i see, is a person who's looking for an ego boost while arguing with redundant ideologies.

[Kuya]

So... you're just arguing because you don't like religion then?

No. We are arguing because we dont like the arguments being put forth for religion. There is a clear difference.

You don't like people arguing agaisnt your views? My i hadn't noticed.

You keep trying to apply scientific methods to an ideology, two systems which are exact opposites. No self respecting scientist would meddle in religion because there would be no point. You can't prove or disprove the abstract. However you seem to have taken it upon yourself to be the saviour of humanity and protect us from big bad religion.

I actually enjoy people disagreeing with my viewpoints alot, it gives me something to learn/grow from. I just ask that some standard be put on those viewpoints.

And do I get a cape for this "saviour of humanity" job? Cause it seems pretty easy if all I have to do is apply a basic logical standard to theories.


edit: Blarg said it right.

Religious ideals are not theories. Hence using scientific methods to prove them wrong is moot. Why do you not understand this?

[Neosutra]

.

In short: I believe one must tread very carefully with religion and raising a child, and Neosutra's opinions, though abraisive and argumentative in nature, are with merit insofar as there is a fundamental divide in faith vs. reason, the two are not entirely compatible. Maybe even totally incompatible. And though he dosen't directly relate the argument to children, it's going to come up one way or the other. (I hope my characterization is correct Neo, I don't want to put words in your mouth.)

Couldnt have said it better.

[Neosutra]

Religious ideals are not theories. Hence using scientific methods to prove them wrong is moot. Why do you not understand this?

Because I refuse to give religious ideals a "free pass" out of logical examination. They are infact theories for how/why things occur and are in no way above basic examination. Why do you not understand this?

[Kuya]

Religious ideals are not theories. Hence using scientific methods to prove them wrong is moot. Why do you not understand this?

Because I refuse to give religious ideals a "free pass" out of logical examination. They are infact theories for how/why things occur and are in no way above basic examination. Why do you not understand this?

A free pass? Why do you feel the need to prove them anything when they are archaic methods of explaining the world around us. They are obviously inferior to modern methods of conceptualizing the world around us. Your crusade here is without a point.

[Blarg]

It seems that any questioning of religious beliefs is seen as more rude/condescending then it really is simply because religious belief has been given a free ride for a long time. It should really be no more safe from questioning than any other belief. If someone believes there was no holocaust, and it brings them comfort to think this way, very few people would simply respect their belief and not challenge it based on the happiness it brings to the person.

You don't accomplish a thing with trying to rip away religion from people in such an antagonizing manner. The only thing i see, is a person who's looking for an ego boost while arguing with redundant ideologies.

This is entirely my point, religious belief is deemed so sacred that you can't even question it like you would any other belief because it is deemed 'antagonizing' to speak ill of it.

[Kuya]

It seems that any questioning of religious beliefs is seen as more rude/condescending then it really is simply because religious belief has been given a free ride for a long time. It should really be no more safe from questioning than any other belief. If someone believes there was no holocaust, and it brings them comfort to think this way, very few people would simply respect their belief and not challenge it based on the happiness it brings to the person.

You don't accomplish a thing with trying to rip away religion from people in such an antagonizing manner. The only thing i see, is a person who's looking for an ego boost while arguing with redundant ideologies.

This is entirely my point, religious belief is deemed so sacred that you can't even question it like you would any other belief because it is deemed 'antagonizing' to speak ill of it.

.... I've had arguments with MF Perm about this before, he was in no way antagonizing about it. He was calm, collected, and very rational. I even got to understand some of his points at the end. Neosutra however is quite the opposite. He is in fact being antagonizing. And I highly doubt his point in this thread is to make people see "the light". Because if he is, he's doing it wrong.

[Intense]

It seems that any questioning of religious beliefs is seen as more rude/condescending then it really is simply because religious belief has been given a free ride for a long time. It should really be no more safe from questioning than any other belief. If someone believes there was no holocaust, and it brings them comfort to think this way, very few people would simply respect their belief and not challenge it based on the happiness it brings to the person.

You don't accomplish a thing with trying to rip away religion from people in such an antagonizing manner. The only thing i see, is a person who's looking for an ego boost while arguing with redundant ideologies.

This is entirely my point, religious belief is deemed so sacred that you can't even question it like you would any other belief because it is deemed 'antagonizing' to speak ill of it.

.... I've had arguments with MF Perm about this before, he was in no way antagonizing about it. He was calm, collected, and very rational. I even got to understand some of his points at the end. Neosutra however is quite the opposite. He is in fact being antagonizing. And I highly doubt his point in this thread is to make people see "the light". Because if he is, he's doing it wrong.

My vote honestly is his reasons for doing this is his need to be right, for some sort of self validation purposes.

[Andarvi]

I don't really know how tangential some of this stuff is, as if you're raising a child, all of the situations we've addressed here will eventually come up very early in the child's life. A child is going to want to know where they came from, and how things work, and your answer to that is going to be important, even if it's "I don't know"

If that answer is "God is responsible for etc." Then many people believe you are fundamentally flawing that child's ability to reason and use logic for natural processes that can be explained by science. Many would go so far as to blame religion for the US' poor science and math recent history. It may seem innocent enough to comfort a child with the belief that there is a God that loves them, but if you begin to use that belief to claim intimate knowledge of a natural process, I would say that does more harm than good. Unfortunately the reality is that happens all too often, or we wouldn't have such a poor track record in public opinion of natural sciences (example: fewer than 50% of the US population "believes" in evolution.) This really does bother atheists, and we consider it fundamentally important that one use reason.

In short: I believe one must tread very carefully with religion and raising a child, and Neosutra's opinions, though abraisive and argumentative in nature, are with merit insofar as there is a fundamental divide in faith vs. reason, the two are not entirely compatible. Maybe even totally incompatible. And though he dosen't directly relate the argument to children, it's going to come up one way or the other. (I hope my characterization is correct Neo, I don't want to put words in your mouth.)

In a perfect world, one's faith wouldn't conflict with the natural world. I think Ivve's beliefs fit well into that category, and as I've said before, not enough christians think like this. It's not that atheists hate religion (some do), but we do think it is dangerous in most real-world cases to a child's mental development.

Hope that's relevent enough.

Nice post buddy, interesting perspective and correllation between the decline in math and science aptitude and the emphasis on religion. Is there a study supporting this? It sounds plausible.

[Ivve]

Not going to make a quote train here, so Ill just address a few of the key points you noted upon:

1. I disagree that it is possible to have this fictitious support system without adding in the harmful side effects. They are not mutually exlusive. You cant take a prescription painkiller to ease a headache without being weary of the sideeffects on the bottle.

That's amazing, because I know plenty of average people who believe in God who have never driven drunk, who don't really have a problem with premarital sex, who don't hate people who are different from themselves, and who live relatively normal lives, I suppose depending on your definition of normal. The problem is that you think that science and belief in a higher power have to be mutually exclusive at all times. That reason and belief in a higher power are mutually exclusive. It's simply not true. Many scientists throughout history and today have been religiously affiliated. I believe Darwin was a Christian.

Are there a fuck-ton of people who are religious/spiritual and hypocritical? Yes, very much so. Does that necessarily mean that it is every single person? Definitely not. My parents are Catholic and I was raised Catholic, and although I do not hold the same beliefs they do, I certainly respect their right to think whatever they want.

Believing in God does not come with side effects. Just because Jane believes that God exists does not mean that she also necessarily believes that everyone else is going to hell, or that she is better than everyone else, or that she must now go out and fucking suicide bomb people. Spirituality is not a package deal. Specific religions can be.

2. Yes, dissection of the beliefs presented in this thread are relevant in analysis of validity of beliefs (For the 401298475th time). I will continue to restate this as long as you continue to antagonize me with names such as smug and self righteous in a vain attempt to categorize my argument as being antagonistic for simply challenging the lack of evidence set forth herein this topic. Think about this one for a little bit before you respond with yet another "your being rude, dont challenge people's beliefs, thats mean!". We have already established a hundred times in this topic that isnt the case, move along now.

3. "I come off intolerant to others beleifs": Yes, yes I do. Because following the logical path of validation of belief systems as proper method for what/how belief systems are introduced to children and thus having and intellectual debate on the subject, you better damn well believe Im going to shoot you down if you come here in with no evidence/reason/or logical premis for your beliefs. I dont give a rats ass what you actually believe in life, but when you come here, be ready to justify it.

Havent you realized that I find it equally offensive that you/others insist on continuing to demand that me/everyone else respect a set of theories regardless of their validity? That you/others insist on pissing on the scientific method and the basic laws of debate(present your perspective and then defend it with EVIDENCE), and that you waste my/our time with nonsense and conjecture when everyone else goes out of their way to present data for their case? You REALLY havent realized its equally/more insulting to do what your doing then for me to be a bit antagonistic? (And if you havent figured out the antagonistic responses at the end of each post is indeed bait to push you a bit into making your argument a bit more solid, your more dissapointing then I expected). Im just trying to get your viewpoint out in the open, backed with actual evidence and reason, rather then post after post of "i believe this, so there!".

Ok?

Just wow. I don't know how many times I can say this. The thread is not about the validity of the beliefs in general. The original poster specifically requested that this not be discussed. Are you missing that? I've said it probably two or three different times now. What you have done is taken the question, "How should an atheist present the concept of God to their children," and turned it into "Does God exist?" That's not the question. You have not even touched on the basis of the discussion at all. Instead, you chose to derail it into an in-depth examination of beliefs, which we all know is never a fruitful discussion. This is the internet. You're not changing anyone's mind.

Will you please answer that question instead of assessing everyone else's responses? That's the point. Stop the derail. It's a never-ending argument that's taken place in so many threads before.

On top of that, I'm not saying you need to stop questioning it because it's mean. It's because I already know where you're going with it. Present proof! Present proof! You and I both know there's no proof of God. If there was proof of God, there would be no need for discussion about whether or not he exists. My point is that you insult people's beliefs, such as Demosthene's, you make inflammatory comments, and then you act surprised when people don't respond with something that you feel is up to par.

Let me explain this clearly. Perhaps the beauty of religion, the best and most well-crafted trick of all time, is the incorporation of the concept of free will. If there was proof of God, we would have no choice but to believe in his existence. We would know. The reason they call it "faith" is because there is no concrete proof -- you just have to believe. While I'm not saying that I agree with this, it is a fucking AWESOMELY constructed loophole. This is the be-all, end-all answer that you will get from anyone who is religiously affiliated. It's so simple, and yet so clever. As a political tool, religion absolutely, positively must be respected. It is probably one of the most powerful tools that human beings have ever come up with. On that level, I definitely respect it.

As for respecting people's beliefs as valid -- that is not necessary or requested. Simply respecting other people's right to believe what they want without having to go all military atheist and fucking read them the riot act is enough. Believe it or not, you're not the first person to ever walk the face of the earth and present those arguments. They've been voiced again and again and again, and there are still people who believe in God because it is faith-based. You cannot counter a theist with facts and figures, because believing in God is well-known to be a belief not backed by proof. And unfortunately for you, people who are spiritual but not religious are not at all swayed by the fact that the Bible is mostly fiction, because God is not necessarily always tied to the Bible.

Some people believe shit you don't believe. Get over it and answer the fucking direct question. You still haven't done it. Even if you're not going to teach your kid to be into God, you have to explain other peoples' beliefs to your kid. That's what this is supposed to be about.

[Andarvi]

Not going to make a quote train here, so Ill just address a few of the key points you noted upon:

1. I disagree that it is possible to have this fictitious support system without adding in the harmful side effects. They are not mutually exlusive. You cant take a prescription painkiller to ease a headache without being weary of the sideeffects on the bottle.

That's amazing, because I know plenty of average people who believe in God who have never driven drunk, who don't really have a problem with premarital sex, who don't hate people who are different from themselves, and who live relatively normal lives, I suppose depending on your definition of normal. The problem is that you think that science and belief in a higher power have to be mutually exclusive at all times. That reason and belief in a higher power are mutually exclusive. It's simply not true. Many scientists throughout history and today have been religiously affiliated. I believe Darwin was a Christian.

Are there a fuck-ton of people who are religious/spiritual and hypocritical? Yes, very much so. Does that necessarily mean that it is every single person? Definitely not. My parents are Catholic and I was raised Catholic, and although I do not hold the same beliefs they do, I certainly respect their right to think whatever they want.

Believing in God does not come with side effects. Just because Jane believes that God exists does not mean that she also necessarily believes that everyone else is going to hell, or that she is better than everyone else, or that she must now go out and fucking suicide bomb people. Spirituality is not a package deal. Specific religions can be.

2. Yes, dissection of the beliefs presented in this thread are relevant in analysis of validity of beliefs (For the 401298475th time). I will continue to restate this as long as you continue to antagonize me with names such as smug and self righteous in a vain attempt to categorize my argument as being antagonistic for simply challenging the lack of evidence set forth herein this topic. Think about this one for a little bit before you respond with yet another "your being rude, dont challenge people's beliefs, thats mean!". We have already established a hundred times in this topic that isnt the case, move along now.

3. "I come off intolerant to others beleifs": Yes, yes I do. Because following the logical path of validation of belief systems as proper method for what/how belief systems are introduced to children and thus having and intellectual debate on the subject, you better damn well believe Im going to shoot you down if you come here in with no evidence/reason/or logical premis for your beliefs. I dont give a rats ass what you actually believe in life, but when you come here, be ready to justify it.

Havent you realized that I find it equally offensive that you/others insist on continuing to demand that me/everyone else respect a set of theories regardless of their validity? That you/others insist on pissing on the scientific method and the basic laws of debate(present your perspective and then defend it with EVIDENCE), and that you waste my/our time with nonsense and conjecture when everyone else goes out of their way to present data for their case? You REALLY havent realized its equally/more insulting to do what your doing then for me to be a bit antagonistic? (And if you havent figured out the antagonistic responses at the end of each post is indeed bait to push you a bit into making your argument a bit more solid, your more dissapointing then I expected). Im just trying to get your viewpoint out in the open, backed with actual evidence and reason, rather then post after post of "i believe this, so there!".

Ok?

Just wow. I don't know how many times I can say this. The thread is not about the validity of the beliefs in general. The original poster specifically requested that this not be discussed. Are you missing that? I've said it probably two or three different times now. What you have done is taken the question, "How should an atheist present the concept of God to their children," and turned it into "Does God exist?" That's not the question. You have not even touched on the basis of the discussion at all. Instead, you chose to derail it into an in-depth examination of beliefs, which we all know is never a fruitful discussion. This is the internet. You're not changing anyone's mind.

Will you please answer that question instead of assessing everyone else's responses? That's the point. Stop the derail. It's a never-ending argument that's taken place in so many threads before.

On top of that, I'm not saying you need to stop questioning it because it's mean. It's because I already know where you're going with it. Present proof! Present proof! You and I both know there's no proof of God. If there was proof of God, there would be no need for discussion about whether or not he exists. My point is that you insult people's beliefs, such as Demosthene's, you make inflammatory comments, and then you act surprised when people don't respond with something that you feel is up to par.

Let me explain this clearly. Perhaps the beauty of religion, the best and most well-crafted trick of all time, is the incorporation of the concept of free will. If there was proof of God, we would have no choice but to believe in his existence. We would know. The reason they call it "faith" is because there is no concrete proof -- you just have to believe. While I'm not saying that I agree with this, it is a fucking AWESOMELY constructed loophole. This is the be-all, end-all answer that you will get from anyone who is religiously affiliated. It's so simple, and yet so clever. As a political tool, religion absolutely, positively must be respected. It is probably one of the most powerful tools that human beings have ever come up with. On that level, I definitely respect it.

As for respecting people's beliefs as valid -- that is not necessary or requested. Simply respecting other people's right to believe what they want without having to go all military atheist and fucking read them the riot act is enough. Believe it or not, you're not the first person to ever walk the face of the earth and present those arguments. They've been voiced again and again and again, and there are still people who believe in God because it is faith-based. You cannot counter a theist with facts and figures, because believing in God is well-known to be a belief not backed by proof. And unfortunately for you, people who are spiritual but not religious are not at all swayed by the fact that the Bible is mostly fiction, because God is not necessarily always tied to the Bible.

Some people believe shit you don't believe. Get over it and answer the fucking direct question. You still haven't done it. Even if you're not going to teach your kid to be into God, you have to explain other peoples' beliefs to your kid. That's what this is supposed to be about.

Holy c-c-c-c-c-c-Combo Breaker

[Blarg]

I believe Darwin was a Christian.

He was raised Christian but as he grew up he stopped believing in god, and just because someone may say it, no he did not recant on his death bed.

You cannot counter a theist with facts and figures, because believing in God is well-known to be a belief not backed by proof. And unfortunately for you, people who are spiritual but not religious are not at all swayed by the fact that the Bible is mostly fiction, because God is not necessarily always tied to the Bible.

This may be true for some people but I would think that most theists believe that the bible is proof of god, and inerrant, therefore facts and figures discounting the bible, and the beliefs teachings and stories therein, do counter theistic ideas. Much of the 'proof' for theists stems from their views about life and the beauty of nature and the order in which our world works, these views are able to be countered by facts and figures as well.