[rockbeer]

Originally Posted by PDN

I, on the other hand, believe in a secular society where all religions and none can co-exist peacefully,

Me too

Originally Posted by PDN

I also am perfectly prepared to accept those of other faiths, such as moderate Muslims, without somehow accusing them of belonging to a violent or hateful religion.

Yet you still attempt to evangelise them, you still consider their beliefs to be wrong, and presumably believe them condemned to eternal damnation. We are back to where we started - I perceive this as a contradiction and therefore feel you are being disingenuous. You do not and do not. Based entirely, I think, on nothing more than your own personal conviction that what you believe is true.

Just to be clear, I would never accuse the adherents of any religion of being violent or hateful people without knowing this to be the case. It's quite a different thing to observe that the teachings of those religions are rooted in hatred and divisiveness, and that the effect of practicing those religions is ultimately divisive and dangerous. Regardless of the intentions of the adherents, which may be and often are entirely positive, as I'm sure they are in your case.

It's not personal.

Originally Posted by PDN

I also freely accept that anyone can be an atheist, and still be a peaceable person, without accusing them of hypocrisy or self-deception.
OK, cleared up then. I think most readers of this thread can judge for themselves which of our philosophies is most damaging and divisive.

See above - it isn't personal and it isn't about individuals.

However, I find it astonishing that you can say this with a straight face in a world that is torn apart by religious strife, where people suffer the daily effects of religious intolerance, and where, on a personal level, people are enduring the consequences of being bound to certain courses of action by ancient superstitions.

You make a persuasive case that these things are perversions of faith, but ultimately that flies in the face of all the evidence, which points to religion and the practice of it as a primary cause of division, violence and misery, regardless of the actual tenets of the faith in question.

Originally Posted by PDN

There is no reason to be wary of a group of people who neither advocate violence or practice violence. Incidentally, do you feel the same about the Quakers and the Amish (extremely pacifistic groups of Christians)?

Agreed, there is no need to be wary of pacifists, however danger may arrive in disguise. Is your church committed to pacifism?

As regards Quakers and the Amish, I respect their right to their beliefs, as I do yours, but remain unconvinced that their beliefs aren't ultimately divisive.

Originally Posted by PDN

We call ourselves 'Christian' because we seek to follow Christ. Actually, the Catholic Church has frequently labelled evangelicals as an NRM. When I built our first church in Ireland the local priest called me a "cult leader" and we were identified as a NRM in a booklet bearing the seal of approval of the Bishop of Galway (yes, that Bishop of Galway). In China evangelical Christians are regularly labelled by the authorities as an evil cult. We're getting on just fine, thank you. Thousands of us in our church (or NRM) in Ireland and over 100 million "evil cult" members in China.

This is quite interesting. IMO it is indefensible that you should be persecuted for your beliefs in this way. This is no way to go about dealing with issues of faith and I would not want you to imagine that I support such repression.

But can you see why to non-believers the idea of your sects fighting among themselves over who are the real christians only increases our sense that the whole show is a malign influence in society?

Originally Posted by PDN

If you want to start a thread on Stalin I will gladly engage with you there. I will be happy to quote my sources (by the way, I read real history books instead of obtaining dubious information by googling)

Are you suggesting I don't read history books? Or that I'm one of those people who believes everything they read on the net? I hope this isn't going to turn into a "my bookshelf > yours" kind of debate. I'm happy to quote sources too, but not sure I have time for the whole Stalin thing. Where will it end? Mao? Pol Pot?

It could go on forever

Originally Posted by PDN

By the way, I never stated that Stalin did anything because of his atheism. I asked you, Do you want to be held accountable for the actions of Stalin because he was an atheist? and I also stated that Stalin commited atrocities in the name of atheism.

That's an important distinction and I'm glad you made it. Yes, 'the name of atheism' was my choice of words and probably not the most appropriate.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by 5uspect

Instead, I seem to get the impression from theists that faith is a revealed truth that emparts absolute undeniable knowledge.

Now, 5uspect, you have put your finger on what I suspect (no pun intended) will always be a sticking point between us.

This does not apply to all theists by any means, but this particular theist (PDN) does believe that certain things are absolutely and undeniably true because they are revealed truth. The same would apply to many Christians.

Therefore I treat revealed truth just as I would something that I have seen with my own eyes. Now, I am always open to the possibility that my interpretation of revealed truth is wrong (just as I am open to the possibility that I saw a mirage or illusion and that therefore what I saw with my own eyes was actually misleading) but it would require some pretty strong evidence to bring me to that conclusion. Our concepts of faith, then, are very different. This has already been discussed in other threads, particularly on the Christianity forum. To try to discuss it on this thread will only veer us further than ever away from the OP.

Now, you may (or perhaps 'will' should be more accurate) disagree with me on this. You may see me as being stupid, dogmatic or deluded. That is your inalienable right in a free and democratic society.

The real disagreement, as I see it, is that I believe I have the right to hold my beliefs. I do not have the right to enforce them upon others, but I do have the right to peaceably share my beliefs with others in the hope that they might embrace them. I also believe I have the right to advocate, and to work for, a secular society, with complete separation of church and state, where all religions and philosophies can compete in an open market place. I have consistently argued for this in numerous threads both here and on the Christianity forum. The problem, as expressed in this thread, is that others appear to have a real issue with an evangelical Christian holding and expressing such views.

[Tim Robbins]

Originally Posted by PDN

I have no problem with people arguing back. I do have a problem with you accusing me repeatedly of arguing by analogy when, in fact, I am using an example or illustration. The two are quite different.

No you are using analogies. From wikipedia:

"In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

What do theology and an 80s movie have in common for the purpose of a theological argument - nothing.
Listen, I am trying to pick at your arguments here, not you personaly. Nothing personal is intended and apologies if something was said that hurt or annoyed you.

Your posts are enjoyable and challenging. I would be confident saying, I am not the only person here who thinks that.

[5uspect]

Originally Posted by PDN

Now, 5uspect, you have put your finger on what I suspect (no pun intended) will always be a sticking point between us.

It does look to be the case.

Originally Posted by PDN

Therefore I treat revealed truth just as I would something that I have seen with my own eyes. Now, I am always open to the possibility that my interpretation of revealed truth is wrong (just as I am open to the possibility that I saw a mirage or illusion and that therefore what I saw with my own eyes was actually misleading) but it would require some pretty strong evidence to bring me to that conclusion.

So you trust your eyes and mental processes? I think that this is a huge mistake on your part. You have no way of trusting any of these.

For example, in my work I use a laser to illuminate fluid flow for measurement.
The laser is a pulsed laser and fires a pulse of light that lasts for arounf 5-8 nanoseconds up to 200 times a second. (Its pretty cool the whole lab glows green! ) Now if I fire the laser just once my eyes aren't fast enough to detect it, I don't see anything. I have no way of knowing that the light was there, apart from the image that the high speed camera I'm using captures. Now this laser is whats called a Class 4 laser which means that a single pulse fired directly into my eye is enough to not only blind me but make quite a mess of my eye ball. Now How do I know that there is indeed light there?
Quantum mechanics (it had to go there some time!) describes how a laser should work. The maths can be worked out in different ways to come to the same conclusion, independent of our mental inadequacies. The results are quite counter intutiative and trusting our evolved commom sense is not a good idea. There is no reason for our senses to tell us the truth to ensure our survival.

Originally Posted by PDN

Our concepts of faith, then, are very different. This has already been discussed in other threads, particularly on the Christianity forum. To try to discuss it on this thread will only veer us further than ever away from the OP.

True, I don't want to drag this much further off topic.

Originally Posted by PDN

Now, you may (or perhaps 'will' should be more accurate) disagree with me on this. You may see me as being stupid, dogmatic or deluded. That is your inalienable right in a free and democratic society.

I wouldn't say stupid, far from it, ill informed or at most slightly naive perhaps.
It seems you've made your mind up based on personal experiences of something you cannot show to be the case. We are both free to think what ever we wish, there should be no such thing as a thought crime, however, to claim so and so is the "truth" without reason is arrogant and (willfully?) ignorant.

Originally Posted by PDN

The real disagreement, as I see it, is that I believe I have the right to hold my beliefs. I do not have the right to enforce them upon others, but I do have the right to peaceably share my beliefs with others in the hope that they might embrace them.

I don't deny you the right to hold beliefs, but you're stating them as facts. Telling a child your beliefs as fact is effectively enforcing these beliefs.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by PDN

"Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." (the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Please underline the bit in Article 18 that says or implies you have the right to indoctrinate your children into your religion?

Surely the Article 18 applies to children as much as adults, and therefore children should be given the opportunity to make up their own mind?

Originally Posted by PDN

Every Jew is entitled to raise their child in the Jewish faith, every Muslim is entitled to raise their child in the Islamic faith, and (much as it may irk some on this board) Christians have the right to raise their children in the Christian faith.

Says who?

Originally Posted by PDN

Where this right is denied by totalitarian regimes, it is protested as a breach of human rights.

You haven't yet established it is a human right to raise your children in your religion. You have just said every religion does it, on which we can both agree.

Should a child not be free from the religion of their parents being imposed upon them? Is that not a "basic human right" under Article 18

Originally Posted by PDN

Let's imagine that Israel passes a law forbidding children to receive religious instruction from their parents. This law applies equally to Jews and Palestinians. You know what happen next. Amnesty International would begin jumping all over the case and as fast as you can say "Shalom" a Resolution would come thundering down from the UN condemning Israel for yet another human rights violation.

That isn't an example, since it hasn't happened. I'm not quite sure how to comment on something that hasn't actually happened.

Originally Posted by PDN

I did something similar with a crowd of people. I asked them if they wished that their parents had taught them that Christ loved them, that their parents had taught them Christian values. Their response was very vocal and very positive.

That actually supports my point PDN.

The parents of these people, be they lax Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or what ever, raised their children as they wished without exposing them to other beliefs. They clearly didn't expose them to different religions or let them make up their own mind about Christianity.

The people you met clearly seem annoyed that they didn't realise Christianity was an option earlier.

You could equally find a Christian like your daughter annoyed that she wasn't exposed to a religion like Islam earlier, and might claim that such exposure would have helped her young life.

It is the responsibility of parents to teach and inform, not to indoctrinate or preach.

You should be teaching your daughter about Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism (and of course atheism) as much as Christianity, and anything else you have time to teach her about, and letting her make up her own mind, so she doesn't turn around in 15 years time angry and upset with you because she didn't realize earlier that Muhammad loves her.

Originally Posted by PDN

"When I spoke about the resurrection, the applause increased by ten decibels - therefore it must be true!"

I would certainly accept that your audience liked hearing about the resurrection, if that is what you claimed.

You seem to be ignoring though the central point though, that Dawkins met a group of young adults who were rather annoyed that they had been indoctrinated into their parents religion as a children when they didn't know any better. You yourself seem to find these people as well, annoyed and angry that they are only being exposed to Christianity now.

I'm sure there is similar resentment with Islamic converts in the west, who are annoyed that they "wasted" a large amount of their childhood being indoctrinated into pointless Christianity rather than being exposed to other religions like Islam and given the choice to make up their own mind.

Running through all this PDN is the common theme that these people are annoyed and angry at their parents because their parents only taught them one thing, only taught them what they believed in.

But rather bizzarely you seem to support this single indoctrination approach, so long as it is indoctrination into Christianity, ignoring the obvious issues that should be clear to you from your example above with a simple switching of "Christianity" to "Islam" and "Jesus" to "Muhammand".

You go further and claim that such indoctrination is not only good, it is a basic human right of the parents to do this.

Surely it was a basic human right then of the parents you mention above, to not educated their children about the religion of Christianity, and damn the children if in later life they are resentful that they weren't informed about this particular religion?

You are also ignoring the obvious fact that as soon as these people could think about it they didn't want to follow their parents religion, and were rather annoyed that their parents had been trying to make them for so long.

The rights of the child seem to being brushed away in favour of the "right" of the parent to indoctrinate their children

I mean no personal offense PDN, I'm sure you are a great father who loves your children very much, but this attitude to the issue is an example of why atheists and particularly secularists such as myself are made very nervous by attitudes towards children such as yours

[PDN]

Lifted from Amnesty International's Canadian website:

Article 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.” Article 30
states: “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her
own religion, or to use his or her own language.”

[rockbeer]

Originally Posted by PDN

Lifted from Amnesty International's Canadian website:

Article 20 is irrelevant.

Where in Article 30 does it state a presumption that the religion of the parents shall be that of the child, or give parents the right to indoctrinate the child into their religion?

Arguably Article 30 protects the child from such indoctrination by protecting the child's right to practice and profess his or her own religion.

At what point can a child be considered to "belong to a religious minority". Surely not until the point where he or she has been given full and balanced information and allowed to make up his or her own mind. In a secular society, being born to parents who adhere to a certain faith doesn't - or shouldn't - automatically make the child a member of same.

[UU]

There's nothing more to it - Scientology is a crazy, nutty and evil cult full of crazy, nutty and evil leaders who endeavour to take over vulnerable people's minds. They believe in things even more stupid than Christianity and Islam, such as alien thetas being stuck to our bodies and emporer Xenu. And it was set up by a wacko science fiction writer called L. Ron Hubbard who was a big fake and made a claim that the best way of earning money is to set up a religion, and boy wasn't he very clever and right! Of course, I don't see Scientology as much different than extreme fanatical forms of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. as they all work on similar principles of mind control tactics, etc., etc........

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by PDN

Lifted from Amnesty International's Canadian website:

No one is suggesting PDN that a child, or anyone else for that matter, be denied the right to "to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language."

In fact what you quote above is key to the argument.

Everyone has the right to decide what is their own religion, and practice that based on that decision. That includes children.

What you are doing is confusing the religion of the parent with the religion of the child

A parent should facilitate this decision, through education and exposure, not make the decision for the child.

This, as we have both seen, can lead to resentment and anger towards the parents.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

No one is suggesting PDN that a child be denied the right to "to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language."

What you are doing is confusing the religion of the parent with the religion of the child

Everyone has the right to decide what is their own religion. That includes children.

A parent should facilitate this decision, through education and exposure, not make the decision for the child. This, as we have both seen, can lead to resentment and anger towards the parents.

Oh yes, the child decides its own religion just like it decides its own culture and language. I see, that must be what Amnesty is talking about.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by PDN

Oh yes, the child decides its own religion just like it decides its own culture and language.

Yes, of course he/she does!

For someone who calms to be interested in defending individual rights you don't seem to really get the purpose of the articles you quote, nor do you apply them to children for some bizarre reason.

I know a girl who was born to Greek parents but grew up in London. Who decides how she feels about what is or is not her culture, her or her parents?

If she thinks she is "British" but her parents think she is "Greek," who is right, her or her parents?

If she thinks English is her first language and prefers to speak it in general conversation, but her parents think Greek is and don't like her speaking English, do they make that decision for her?

(BTW her parents are nothing like this, I use it just as an example)

A child has the right to decide their own identity, just as an adult does.

A I've said before parents should (and should want to) facilitate this choice, not make it for them. This includes culture and religion.

[rockbeer]

PDN, it sounds as though rather than advocating a secular society, you instead support a ghettoised one in which you are left alone to practice your particular brand of faith without having to engage with the responsibilities being a proponent of secular society places upon you.

Significant amongst these is to allow your children the full benefits of secularism which you yourself wish to avail of, i.e. to receive a balanced education as free as possible from religious bias.

A secular society isn't something you can just take advantage of in order to enjoy religious freedom for yourself. It places duties on you too.

History suggests that faiths can only be sustained by exposing young, impressionable children to them. If your arguments are so persuasive, why not give your children the full picture and let them decide for themselves?

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

Yes, of course he/she does!

For someone who calms to be interested in defending individual rights you don't seem to really get the purpose of the articles you quote, nor do you apply them to children for some bizarre reason.

I know a girl who was born to Greek parents but grew up in London. Who decides how she feels about what is or is not her culture, her or her parents?

If she thinks she is "British" but her parents think she is "Greek," who is right, her or her parents?

If she thinks English is her first language and prefers to speak it in general conversation, but her parents think Greek is and don't like her speaking English, do they make that decision for her?

(BTW her parents are nothing like this, I use it just as an example)

A child has the right to decide their own identity, just as an adult does.

A I've said before parents should (and should want to) facilitate this choice, not make it for them. This includes culture and religion.

And if she was raised as Greek Orthodox?

[pinksoir]

Originally Posted by PDN

And if she was raised as Greek Orthodox?

That's the whole point. She doesn't choose, she is raised that way.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by PDN

And if she was raised as Greek Orthodox?

Then she would probably be a bit pissed off about that fact if she became a Muslim at 23

Because her parents attempt to raise her Greek Orthodox doesn't mean she is Greek Orthodox