WHAT CONVINCED YOU?

Ickle Magoo

Húrin wrote: »

...... mindlessly falling into line as atheists.

I'm not sure I would agree with that, particularly the above. Most (not all, I grant you!) atheist I have spoken to know are pretty clued up on why they are non-believers, often with much more tenable & well constructed arguments for their choices than their theist counterparts. In my time in Ireland, I have heard many people talk of going along with a particular religion because of parental & social pressure, the ease of just doing what everyone else is doing, tradition and so on... maybe people have been mindlessly falling into line as theists and now that is changing?

Mena

Mickeroo wrote: »

I dont know anybody who is raising their children as atheist

Hi Mickeroo. I'm Mena. Pleased to meet you.

There, now you know someone raising their child as an atheist. Retract your statement!

Mickeroo

Mena wrote: »

Hi Mickeroo. I'm Mena. Pleased to meet you.

There, now you know someone raising their child as an atheist. Retract your statement!

Much obliged

CerebralCortex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure I would agree with that, particularly the above. Most (not all, I grant you!) atheist I have spoken to know are pretty clued up on why they are non-believers, often with much more tenable & well constructed arguments for their choices than their theist counterparts. In my time in Ireland, I have heard many people talk of going along with a particular religion because of parental & social pressure, the ease of just doing what everyone else is doing, tradition and so on... maybe people have been mindlessly falling into line as theists and now that is changing?

You have to remember your words wise though they may be are not going to impact what Hùrin thinks. They can't because what they suggest is that religion on the whole is just imposed (at the same time not everybody has the same religious experience in fact I don't think anyone has the same exact religious xp so not all religion is imposed more likely something you just catch). Hùrin is doing what I've noticed many a theist do in these forums and that is to make atheism akin to theism so that when we burn them we burn ourselves. Its extremely frustrating because try as you may you'll never get them to see atheism for what it is.

You probably could brainwash someone to believe in nothing supernatural but it would be such a monumental waste of time and without motive

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

No, it's the empiricist brainwashing that results in children ignoring the evidence that God exists, so that they simply claim that no such evidence exists.

empiricist brainwashing? Ha, you really are a keeper Húrin, what will you think of next. So really just life in general is "brainwashing" to you. Under your reasoning the word "teaching" doesn't exist. I suppose you will send your kids off to school to get brainwashed into understanding maths, and then you'll brainwash them into looking both ways before crossing the street... etc.

Húrin wrote: »

The former is no more objective than the latter.

au contraire, it certainly is. The latter is an absolute taught by many religious parents to their children, the former was a speculation that taught a child that god probably doesn't exist so it needn't be of a concern to them. I know of no religious parent that teaches their child that God probably exists so they should obey his will outlined in their holy book, they are almost always taught that he simply does exist

Húrin wrote: »

The parent who teaches this wishes the child to either follow his/her will, or the social pressures that exist in the culture they live in.

Correct! Now what is your point? That this is empiricist brainwashing? Well if I entertain your notion that somehow empiricism is "brainwashing", it is certainly the more desirable of 2 evils when compared with theist brainwashing as it adheres more closely to Occam's Razor principle as the former can exist without the latter, however the inverse is not true.

Húrin wrote: »

And what makes you think that the main purpose of raising a child a Christian is to impose behavioural restrictions on them?

I never said it was the "main purpose", however it is a by-product of their indoctrination.

Húrin wrote: »

Nobody who raises their child a Christian is knowingly raising them to live a lie.

What you suggested - that they shouldn't concern themselves with it - (i.e. don't dare ask questions) is exactly the opposite of teaching a child a question.

Eh... are you reading the same post as I am because I didn't say any of that. They are not teaching them to "live a lie", they are teaching them a lie. If a parent tells their child "God definitely is real", when they cannot know that he is real then they are lying, if they said "God probably is real" then I would have no problem with it, but you know as well as I do that rarely is the case.

An Atheist will or should teach their child to ask the question of whether God is real or not for themselves. This is the question they are taught in comparison to the absolutes that are taught to children raised into a religion.

Húrin wrote: »

Spirituality and religion is sidelined, treated as a source of moral nagging, or just downright ridiculed.

I don't think it is necessarily gone from these individuals lives. A lot of people who just aren't active religious members will quickly turn back to their God in their times of need. When the going is good, religion is sidelined out of its lack of relevance, but when a persons life is detrimentally affected and they feel they are losing control, they will turn back to the God they know for comfort. Don't confuse a persons religious nonchalance with them being advocates of Atheism.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I am not here to convert anyone, or tell them that they ought to believe in God. Each to his own I say. I am arguing against the characterisation that people raising their children in religion are brainwashers or child abusers. Atheists do not have some sort of objective view of reality, nor does atheism inherently promote free thinking any more than religion.

Nonsense.

Religion by its very nature diminishes "free thinking" because it is saying that what you should think about certain stuff has already been decided by other people, and it is here in this book and if you disagree then the book isn't wrong, you are.

That is the whole appeal of religion in the first place, having something else decided for you because quite often having to figure stuff out ourselves is very daunting and stressful and we never know if we are right or not.

As for atheism promoting free thinking it depends on what one means by atheism. A lot of people here (religious mostly) seem to think that raising your child atheist is the exact opposite of raising your child thesis, so if you guys say to your child "God exists and loves you very much" you think the atheist says "God doesn't exist and doesn't love you"

That would not be the way I would raise my children.

It misses the fundamental point for a lot of atheists, particularly on this forum, that it is not what you learn but how you learn it.

I am far more likely to explain to my child that personal perception can be faulty and it is not always a good idea to trust it, or that the mind can play tricks on people to make them see patterns and purpose in things, than to simply tell them there is no God and be done with it. They can conclude that on their own.

I think a lot of theists miss the wood for the trees in this regard, thinking that the opposite of dictating a particular set of beliefs of reality to their children is to dictate a different set of beliefs to their children, rather than preparing your children to figure out their own beliefs.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst, you probably should have looked up what "empiricism" means before replying to my post.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I dont think this is particularly true of Irish media or schools. I dont know anybody who is raising their children as atheist,saying you're an atheist is still pretty much frowned upon where I come from.

I suppose things are different between city and country. Christians are a tiny minority in my generation and county.

Wicknight wrote: »

Nonsense.

Religion by its very nature diminishes "free thinking" because it is saying that what you should think about certain stuff has already been decided by other people, and it is here in this book and if you disagree then the book isn't wrong, you are.

Mickeroo wrote:

Religion does not promote free thinking.....too many rules.

Hold on, you and the other atheists are saying that nothing exists other than physical nature, and that nothing may be known that is not discovered through science. My religiously-influenced approach to epistemology is significantly more liberal, and yet religion is against free thinking?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure I would agree with that, particularly the above. Most (not all, I grant you!) atheist I have spoken to know are pretty clued up on why they are non-believers, often with much more tenable & well constructed arguments for their choices than their theist counterparts. In my time in Ireland, I have heard many people talk of going along with a particular religion because of parental & social pressure, the ease of just doing what everyone else is doing, tradition and so on... maybe people have been mindlessly falling into line as theists and now that is changing?

I agree. I have articulated my observation numerous times: that in the past, most people were Catholics simply because everyone else was.

Now, the present generation are mostly atheists because everyone else is. Hence, most Christians I know are much better able to articulate why they are believers, than most young atheists are able to say why they are not believers.

Wicknight wrote: »

I am far more likely to explain to my child that personal perception can be faulty and it is not always a good idea to trust it, or that the mind can play tricks on people to make them see patterns and purpose in things, than to simply tell them there is no God and be done with it. They can conclude that on their own.

I think a lot of theists miss the wood for the trees in this regard, thinking that the opposite of dictating a particular set of beliefs of reality to their children is to dictate a different set of beliefs to their children, rather than preparing your children to figure out their own beliefs.

You argument seems to depend entirely on a negative stereotype of religious parents (i.e. against letting their children think for themselves) and an idealised stereotype of atheist parents. It is likely that many atheist parents are just as dictatorial as the worst religious ones. I would advise that you make a stronger argument that does not rely on such stereotypes.

Remember also that much of my argument in this thread has discussed not the openly atheist parents, but also those parents who never talk about the God question at all. So this claim that I imagine atheist parents as a bunch of quasi-Stalinist mind controllers is not relevant.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst, you probably should have looked up what "empiricism" means before replying to my post.

There was no need, I'm guessing if you had actually looked up about empiricism you would of understood my post enough to rebut. I was referring to empiricism in the philosophical sense of the childs mind as a tabula rasa.

I did however look up about "empiricist brainwashing", to which I found no evidence. Did you just juxtapose these words in your head and write them down imagining they sounded clever?

Which is why I made the point that if you are going to classify empiricism (ergo any knowledge gained from sense-based experiences) as brainwashing, then what ISN'T brainwashing to you?

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There was no need, I'm guessing if you had actually looked up about empiricism you would of understood my post enough to rebut. I was referring to empiricism in the philosophical sense of the childs mind as a tabula rasa.

I did however look up about "empiricist brainwashing", to which I found no evidence. Did you just juxtapose these words in your head and write them down imagining they sounded clever?

I never write anything to sound clever. I generally use words that fit best what I am trying to say. However I admit that like virtually every other poster in the thread, I've been using the term "brainwashing" loosely.

Which is why I made the point that if you are going to classify empiricism (ergo any knowledge gained from sense-based experiences) as brainwashing, then what ISN'T brainwashing to you?

Umm, no, the term "empiricist brainwashing" clearly does not mean that the knowledge gained is in itself, brainwashing. I refer to the ideologies associated with it, primarily the elevation of empirical methods above all others, such as reason and faith.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

I refer to the ideologies associated with it, primarily the elevation of empirical methods above all others, such as reason and faith.

Emprical observation is 'above' all others because it is never wrong. It is what 'is'. Once you have empirical evidence for something you can't deny the evidence, it can not be wrong. Your explanation for it can be wrong but the observation itself can't be wrong so long as it is carried out under proper scientific conditions. This is not an ideology this is a simple matter of reality!

Faith and reason can be completely wrong and more often than not are, the former far more so than the latter.

Ickle Magoo

Húrin wrote: »

I agree. I have articulated my observation numerous times: that in the past, most people were Catholics simply because everyone else was.

Now, the present generation are mostly atheists because everyone else is. Hence, most Christians I know are much better able to articulate why they are believers, than most young atheists are able to say why they are not believers.

I don't really agree with that either. Do you really think that the idea of theism is so appealing, it's only ignorance and lack of free thinking preventing the world from being 100% theist - really?

In the past people didn't really have a choice. Certainly Irish life & culture is still deeply entwined with the Catholic Church but you won't get publicly ostracised for living with someone before marriage or having a child out with wedlock and it's now actually possible to have your child educated in a school that is not run to the Catholic churches dictates.

I think there were always a lot of atheists, there often just wasn't any alternative to living as a theist - the social, familial & historical pressure was just too great. I don't think atheism is populist, I think it's become more acceptable and I think the Church's decline from grace in a lot of people's eyes was a large contributing factor to that, ironically.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Hold on, you and the other atheists are saying that nothing exists other than physical nature, and that nothing may be known that is not discovered through science. My religiously-influenced approach to epistemology is significantly more liberal, and yet religion is against free thinking?

That is some what of a confusing statement.

For a start I would define "physical nature" as everything that does exist (include God if he exists), so by definition nothing exists that isn't encompassed by the term physical nature. If God exists he is part of nature, an element in it or at the very least it itself.

Secondly, I wouldn't say nothing can be known that is not discovered through science. I would say that science is by far the best methodology humans have yet come up with to learn about reality, and if a person cannot assess something using science then they should admit that their understanding of it is going to be very limited and flawed because of this.

It is all very well Hurin going on about other methods of learn apart from science, but so far I've not see you, or anyone else, put forward any that don't fall foul to all the problems that science attempt to address, such as relying on personal assessment and opinion, that is inherently untrustworthy.

I've nothing against you coming up with a better system than science, nor would I ever be arrogant enough to claim that it is impossible to come up with a better system than science. But that is not the same as assuming that other systems are better. The proof is in the pudding, if your alternative systems can also over come the problems that science attempts to address, then I welcome them with open arms. But so far I see zero evidence of this.

Húrin wrote: »

You argument seems to depend entirely on a negative stereotype of religious parents (i.e. against letting their children think for themselves) and an idealised stereotype of atheist parents.

I'm not sure I would consider a Christian parent telling their child that God exists and loves them to be a "negative stereotype" of religious parents. If that is the case practically all Christians parents I know fall into that stereotype and I must have a very skewed view of Christians parents.

But anyway, as for stereotype of atheist parents I was address your stereotype of the "God doesn't exist now brush your teeth" atheist parents.

Húrin wrote: »

It is likely that many atheist parents are just as dictatorial as the worst religious ones. I would advise that you make a stronger argument that does not rely on such stereotypes.

It is possible that many atheist parents molest their children, that doesn't mean people around here believe that is a good idea.

I am addressing your apparent assertion that that is how an atheist would wish to raise their child, telling them out right that God doesn't exist. That it certainly not how I would wish to raise them.

ChocolateSauce

My religiously-influenced approach to epistemology is significantly more liberal, and yet religion is against free thinking?

Yours doesn't prove anything, and relies largely on the unknowable as a base assumption.

normar

To answer your query directly I would suggest it is in the nature of humans to question.

But my atheism seriously began when I watched unquestioned wrongdoing go unpunished in a school I was helping as a board member. Though the issue was raised by some of the parents to the church authorities, it was ignored. I subsequently watched the priest standby this wrongdoing. He later admitted to me he had to do this because he had taken a vow of obedience to his church. I recognise only too well that there are always two sides to a story but that was my experience. What this experience taught me very forcefully was that the church is in reality simply a male dominated human organisation, and it will protect itself at a cost to others if necessary.

Since then I have given up my "faith" in religion and in gods and in the supernatural. I can say that I am much the better for it. I have adopted Humanist values and I try to do good in my everyday life. I do so, not in the expectation of rewards or because of the fear of " eternal damnation in the god created flames of hellfire" in the next life, but because it is a naturally human thing to do anyway.

I have come to accept more firmly as I grow older, the truths and principles that empirical science has given us. Indeed all religions are totally unlike science. For me science and the rationalist viewpoint will continually question and test its values and assumptions against empirical evidence, available to all, and it will discard those assumptions and values which are found wanting or false in favour of better ones as they arise. No religion will ever do that.


I want to say that I accept that science does not have all the answers. Indeed far from it. But at least it continues to seek out answers to the important questions, and will lay these answers open for all to consider against the evidence. With science it is not a matter of “personal faith”, for such is not science at all. Each of the myriad of "revealed" religions I believe only offer dogma. For example geology and evolution factually and demonstrably show that the biblical flood did not occur, that life evolved over a thousand million years in time and did not multiply since the ark. The microscope can demonstrate that genetic mutation of life actually happens in real time. Religion "teaches" the opposite. My reading of the first five books of the Bible informs my against the needless godly instigated butchery and superstition that lies within. I found myself simply unable to accept such a story of barbarism, murder and superstition as a model for my life. Islam included.

Lucas10101

fitz0 wrote: »

So your rejection of a god was based solely on the books? What about Zeus, Wodan, Apollo, Thor etc whose holy books don't exist anymore or don't have holy books? What makes them invalid?

Im not saying you're wrong, just wondering.

Well, the main monotheisms my reply was for that time.

Regarding Zeus, etc. they are clearly constructs of mythology man-made as are the other 4,000 created ones.

Regarding the deistic God- it would have to care if we were created perfect, we are not created perfect, therefore this God doesn't care. If it doesn't care, then we have no reason for creation. Therefore, there's nothing special about us. So we are created as part of the natural order, and because this creator has no reason or thought for our existence, it cannot be all-knowing. If it just one bit less than perfect, then it cannot be a God, and just by showing it's not all-knowing or cannot be, I believe disproves the deistic God.