Your children and your views

Zamboni

aidan24326 wrote: »

But remember we're all born without any religion so it's the default position anyway.

I'm with you on this.
Then give a child science as the tool to understanding the world they find themselves in rather than fairy tales.
Children are naturally inquistive. That should be encouraged and not dumbed down with fire and brimstone myths.

lostexpectation

/wonders if the op's faith is still based on cultural homogeny

wonders does she think the atheist parent should give credence to god.

planetX

I'm an atheist who had no choice but to send my son to a Catholic school - I strongly object to any organised religion being present in school...however what I've told my son is that I don't know if God exists, and neither does anyone else. Nobody call tell him for sure, and it's something he has to feel for himself. Was initially a bit worried that he might get brainwashed into Catholicism (as I was as a child), but he's an independent thinker. Some of the things he's coming out with are hilarious though - came back from school one day and said 'you know Jesus - is it true SHE died and got born again'
He also thought that hell is somewhere down below where the vampires live...I did set him right on that one - haven't the churches officially abandoned hell now?

The Mad Hatter

planetX wrote: »

He also thought that hell is somewhere down below where the vampires live...I did set him right on that one

Damn right. Ain't nothing below the vampires.

planetX

I used to be really upset as a child about limbo. It's a bit sinister that one day the church decided to get rid of limbo - where have all those unbaptised babies gone, did they get a free pass into heaven, or are they hidden somewhere...

DinoBot

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Exactly when I was a child I wanted to be catholic just because everyone else was. Thanks for all the contributions, interesting reading.

When did that change for you ? At what age did you become christian ?

We always joke at home that god will get back at me and make my kids born again

It is difficult not to influence your kids but what I try to do is instill a way of thinking. To look at things and question it rather than simply say, "thats untrue because I believe <insert dogma or science here>"

But do you have such freedom if you believe in religion ?
If you are christian then you believe in an afterlife. In order to have a good afterlife then you must follow gods plan.

If you truely believe that why would you not pass such important information onto your child ? Why are you conflicted on this ?

ChocolateSauce

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Exactly when I was a child I wanted to be catholic just because everyone else was. Thanks for all the contributions, interesting reading.

But not because you actually found it attractive, or believed it was true?

Goduznt Xzst

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Tbh, a more pressing question I've often wondered is should I lie to my children and tell them santa is real? I actually haven't decided yet and find this a graver question than the one of religion. Should I deliberately mislead my child into believing something which is patently untrue? And for what? The promise of presents? As a child I didn't care whence my presents came, just so long as I got them. Any opinions on this one?

This is a big question, particular for myself in thinking how I'd raise a child. I mean I will teach them that there is not sufficient enough evidence to believe in a personal God, or one that has dictated ways of living to us. But then I also want my child to have a vivid imagination.

Therein lies the rub, do I lie to my child about fantasies and tales and tell them that they are true, but then on the other hand tell them for definite that the Gods of man don't exist. Will I just be conditioning my child to be more receptive to the beliefs of religions as they get older?

It is a question I think all Atheists have to ask. What lies are acceptable to tell a child?

Tim Robbins

midlandsmissus wrote: »

As atheists do you think you will make your children atheists?
I know there is more of a mix in schools these days than when I was young, so social factors probably wouldnt be as relevant.

No. I have no set rules on what religion they'll be. My OH is a Church goer, so we'll probably do a bit of both Christianity, Atheism and various other religions.

Would you be upset if your child turned out to be a christian?

No.

It is all too easy to press our views on children, and something we all maybe need to think about? what do you think? In regards to your parents and yourself? and in regards to what you might do with your own children?

Just try to make them respect those who take different views.

midlandsmissus

Hiya I'd say I wanted to be catholic as a child, purely during my primary school years. And yes it would have been totally just to fit in. For the social aspect. It's not like i actually understood what they were on about (and im sure most of the other kids hadnt a clue what it was about either, it was purely a social thing, and the excitement of communion and confirmation.)
I grew out of this stage at around 12, when I started to question everything (and listen to my parents), so was profoundly atheist from 12 to 23. argued with everyone including this poor priest that I did choir with in college!! Then this year (24) I just had a strange set of occurences happen to me. I know it's the old vague 'feelings' story, but I can't do any better than that! And am now a christian.

As to what lostexpectation said, I suppose I do try to influence my parents to my views in a certain sense. I suppose it's impossible not to. But I would do it in a way where i would just say 'if you're so open minded can you not just be open minded to what I believe in, and let me be happy?' I would never be like 'AGGHHHH YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!! thats not what its all about. anyway i think if i had children i would tell them what i believe in, but i wouldnt baptise them in anything (which i dont think is necessary anyway) and just let them follow their own path.

midlandsmissus

And before we go back to the old chestnut again - if you're a christain surely you have to want your loved ones to be christian to avoid hell. I think it's defintely better for people to make their own path, and understanding, and discovery in life. After all look how many people are forced into christianity as a child, and rebel, and turn out to be athiests. Surely it's better for people to make their own decisions as adults.

Zamboni

midlandsmissus wrote: »

After all look how many people are forced into christianity as a child, and rebel, and turn out to be athiests. Surely it's better for people to make their own decisions as adults.

I'd hazard a guess and say that is more through rational thought that people become atheist rather than as a rebellion.

DinoBot

midlandsmissus wrote: »

And before we go back to the old chestnut again - if you're a christain surely you have to want your loved ones to be christian to avoid hell. I think it's defintely better for people to make their own path, and understanding, and discovery in life. After all look how many people are forced into christianity as a child, and rebel, and turn out to be athiests. Surely it's better for people to make their own decisions as adults.

Thanks for the reply, its very interesting to read about someone who went the opposite way than most, from no religion to religion.

You say 'surely it's better for people to make their own decisions as adults', which is fine in a sort of abstract way. But if you believe hell is a real place where people go, do you not want to educate your kids on how not to go there ? Also, how do you feel that your parents will go to hell ?

If my questions are too personal, just ignore them. They are not loaded questions, I don't have a come back :-) Im asking because Im interested in how you rationalise the concert of hell. You are in a unique position because most people share the same faith as their parents so none of their family are going to hell (or they have no faith, which has the same result). But you have taken on a faith which tells you that your parents will go to hell and suffer forever.

Húrin

Zamboni wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess and say that is more through rational thought that people become atheist rather than as a rebellion.

As with people who convert to religions, both explanations are true.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

As with people who convert to religions, both explanations are true.

Ha Oh Húrin, you cad, no... no they aren't, not in the slightest. You believe that there are invisible spirits flying around in the skies outside your window, that there is an evil spirit sending his demons around tempting people, that some big being is up there listening to you talking to yourself in your mind and considering whether or not he should rework his plan for all of us to accommodate you, that one day a billion years from now, you'll still exist in a state of perfection with all your family and friends. No, Húrin, no, nothing about your choice to "believe" is rational, in fact it is the antithesis of the word. You may have surrounded yourself with smoke and mirrors by educating yourself about the opinions on the writings you view as holy, but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of it all you believe in something as being true that you can't possibly know as true, which is why it is irrational.

Rb

Húrin wrote: »

As with people who convert to religions, both explanations are true.

I know Christians are pig ignorant, but this really takes the cake

Cheers for the chuckle.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

*internet troll tells me what I believe*

Just because Christianity does not suit your culture-specific prejudices (or common sense you might prefer to call it) does not make it ridiculous, irrational or false.

No, Húrin, no, nothing about your choice to "believe" is rational, in fact it is the antithesis of the word. You may have surrounded yourself with smoke and mirrors by educating yourself about the opinions on the writings you view as holy, but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of it all you believe in something as being true that you can't possibly know as true, which is why it is irrational.

So how is it any different with atheism? It is no more rational. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so he cannot be denied with any more certainty than he can be confirmed.

Do you even understand what the word rational means? I read that Christian Gospels, and taking their advice I tested their veracity by praying for guidance to a kind of God I wasn't even sure existed (remember, believing in God is not the same as accepting Christianity). I received the Holy Spirit from God as the text promised I would. Seems rational to me.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

So how is it any different with atheism? It is no more rational. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so he cannot be denied with any more certainty than he can be confirmed.

But, if you take this to be true, nothing is a rational decision: rationality doesn't exist; because, everything is unfalsifiable. We can't say for sure that Kim Jong-il won't fart the world out of existance tomorrow - so, going by what you've said - it isn't a rational decision to declare that he won't. Rationality: farwell.

Tar.Aldarion

My children, if she can convince me to have them, will be taught about our views and the views of others. Also, why we think something is right and something is wrong, i.e. there will hopefully be no religion or meat in my home etc, things we feel strongly about. Should they make a decision contrary to our beliefs they will be free to do that but they will be taught about any and all viewpoints I can think off.

pH

Húrin wrote: »

Just because Christianity does not suit your culture-specific prejudices (or common sense you might prefer to call it) does not make it ridiculous, irrational or false.

You know what you're dead right, that's not what makes it ridiculous, irrational and false.

The fact that people believe that a God created this whole universe, to allow carbon based lifeforms evolve over billions of years, then at some stage God suddenly loves them, but feels a huge need to play some kind of "how good are you?" game by forcing these humans to obey an arbitrary set of rules and believe in him for 70 years, and those that pass the test win the big prize!

The fact that people believe that somehow God had to have part of himself killed (for 3 days) so save the rest of us from his rules, and that we should gather in churches once a week to remember this and pretend to eat him.

The fact that people believe all of this based on the writings of bronze age desert nomads, and then some barely remembered inconsistent tales about a carpenter in Galilee written years after his death, and let's not forget the rantings of a man who fell off his horse on the road to Damascus years later and felt free to pronounce on all kinds of things.

The fact that no matter how much the faithful claim it's about "faith" they really justify it with evidence, and yet when all their evidence is looked at it amounts to absolutely nothing.

They're what makes it ridiculous, irrational and false.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, if you take this to be true, nothing is a rational decision: rationality doesn't exist; because, everything is unfalsifiable. We can't say for sure that Kim Jong-il won't fart the world out of existance tomorrow - so, going by what you've said - it isn't a rational decision to declare that he won't. Rationality: farwell.

That's wrong. Science depends on falsifiability. The hypothesis that the world is flat has, for instance, been falsified.

pH wrote: »

You know what you're dead right, that's not what makes it ridiculous, irrational and false.

The fact that people believe that a God created this whole universe, to allow carbon based lifeforms evolve over billions of years, then at some stage God suddenly loves them, but feels a huge need to play some kind of "how good are you?" game by forcing these humans to obey an arbitrary set of rules and believe in him for 70 years, and those that pass the test win the big prize!

The fact that people believe that somehow God had to have part of himself killed (for 3 days) so save the rest of us from his rules, and that we should gather in churches once a week to remember this and pretend to eat him.

The fact that people believe all of this based on the writings of bronze age desert nomads, and then some barely remembered inconsistent tales about a carpenter in Galilee written years after his death, and let's not forget the rantings of a man who fell off his horse on the road to Damascus years later and felt free to pronounce on all kinds of things.

The fact that no matter how much the faithful claim it's about "faith" they really justify it with evidence, and yet when all their evidence is looked at it amounts to absolutely nothing.

They're what makes it ridiculous, irrational and false.

This is just what Goduznt Xzst said, but with better use of paragraphing and capital letters. However, it is even weaker on facts, and even worse for biased language. I can see right through this kind of negative framing, for it is nothing more than framing.

Just because Christianity does not suit your culture-specific prejudices (or common sense you might prefer to call it) does not make it ridiculous, irrational or false.

However, I must ask, is it relevant to the thread? Or do atheists simply have no idea about when is good and when is not a good time to proselytise?

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Just because Christianity does not suit your culture-specific prejudices (or common sense you might prefer to call it) does not make it ridiculous, irrational or false.

Listen, knowing your belief is irrational has nothing to do with "culture-specific prejudices". Belief just IS irrational, ipso facto. Most religious people would accept, in a sense, that there is no rationale for their beliefs, they believe that they are under the influence of some magical spiritual power that lets them see scripture clearly and behold truths that unbelievers of their faith can't know. They believe they are above rationality.

Húrin wrote: »

So how is it any different with atheism? It is no more rational. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so he cannot be denied with any more certainty than he can be confirmed.

Ok, I'm not going to entertain this line of argument again. You clearly don't understand anything about what Atheism means. I think you are trying to bracket it in with some other belief system when it is merely a lack of belief.

Let me ask you this, and I would appreciate an answer. If an individual walked up beside you right now, and said "there is an invisible monkey between you and the computer screen" and you said "no there isn't". Would you say that both of yous where being equally rational?

Húrin wrote: »

I received the Holy Spirit from God as the text promised I would. Seems rational to me.

What? Are you just plucking words out of thin air and applying your own meanings to them? How on earth can you say this hunch you have that you have now been gifted with holy powers is rational?

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

That's wrong. Science depends on falsifiability. The hypothesis that the world is flat has, for instance, been falsified.

Yes. But, my point was that saying something is an "unfalsifiable hypotheses" isn't a good enough reason to put it on par with beliefs that hold more credence; My point was that the line regarding what to consider to be true, and where to start really thinking about falsifiability has to be drawn somewhere: or else we could believe nothing. And, I think this line should be drawn before the concept of a theistic god.

Húrin

It seems there is woeful misunderstanding of what it meant by the term of rationality. PEople especially seem to be assuming it is a synonym for "sensiblity" or "respectability", or even "agrees with my opinions"; it is not these. Wikipedia holds it thus:

Rationality as a term is related to the idea of reason, a word which following Webster's may be derived as much from older terms referring to thinking itself as from giving an account or an explanation. This lends the term a dual aspect.

One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

A logical argument is often described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them.

For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational. A simple philosophical definition of rationality refers to one's use of a "practical syllogism". For example,
I am cold
I don't want to be cold
If I close the window I will not be cold...
Therefore, I will close the window

All that is required for an action to be rational is that if one believes action X (which can be done) implies Y, and that Y is desirable, he or she does X. The action would likewise be avoided were Y undesirable. Such arguments are logically valid but not necessarily logically sound.

For example, the premise "If I close the window I will not be cold..." may in fact be incorrect. As making formally sound argument is generally considered difficult, the "soundness" or "strength" of such premises will often rest on induction, statistics, and simplified heuristical models.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes. But, my point was that saying something is an "unfalsifiable hypotheses" isn't a good enough reason to put it on par with beliefs that hold more credence

I mentioned unfalsifiability to demonstrate that both atheism and theism are positions that transgress that line of falsifiability.

My point was that the line regarding what to consider to be true, and where to start really thinking about falsifiability has to be drawn somewhere: or else we could believe nothing. And, I think this line should be drawn before the concept of a theistic god.

Yes, that's why I called God scientifically unfalsifiable. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you mean here.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

It seems there is woeful misunderstanding of what it meant by the term of rationality. PEople especially seem to be assuming it is a synonym for "sensiblity" or "respectability", or even "agrees with my opinions"; it is not these. Wikipedia holds it thus:

Oh, my apologies Húrin, I had assumed, foolishly so it would seem now in retrospect that we where taking the commonly accepted connotation of rational to mean a logically sound argument. If you are broadening its definition to mean anything a person believes to be true even though it is probably false, then yes under this definition of rationality where a person believes an illogical and unsound argument to be true that your religious beliefs, are in fact, rational.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Oh, my apologies Húrin, I had assumed, foolishly so it would seem now in retrospect that we where taking the commonly accepted connotation of rational to mean a logically sound argument. If you are broadening its definition to mean anything a person believes to be true even though it is probably false, then yes under this definition of rationality where a person believes an illogical and unsound argument to be true that your religious beliefs, are in fact, rational.

I am not broadening the definition. I didn't write the wikipedia article. I am simply reporting the definition.

I agree that my description of the process of testing the Christian gospel was not logically sound since its conclusion is unfalsifiable. I found it rather obtuse of you to insist that I was being irrational even after I had explained the process rationally. We were using different definitions! However, I do insist that the process was a rational one. I also insist on people using their words correctly, not as emotionalised insults (as the term "irrational" too often is).

On the same grounds, strong atheism is rational, but it is logically unsound. I do not misunderstand atheism; I used to be one. If my beliefs are "probably false" that is your opinion; it is not fact.

Of what relevance is this to the thread? Do some atheists simply have no idea about when is good and when is not a good time to proselytise?

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, that's why I called God scientifically unfalsifiable. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you mean here.

In this quote:

So how is it any different with atheism? It is no more rational. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so he cannot be denied with any more certainty than he can be confirmed.

You imply that atheism and theism are on par, with regards to falsifiability. I was trying to explain that atheism stands much stronger with the concept of unfalsifiability than theism does: as theism is the one proposing the hypotheses; atheism is simply refusing to believe in what the hypotheses states. And when there's, we'll say equal evidence (I know there certainly isn't equal evidence for the idea of a god - this is just for arguments sake) for the idea of a god - the side that doesn't believe the hypotheses is in a stronger position than the side that proposed it.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You imply that atheism and theism are on par, with regards to falsifiability. I was trying to explain that atheism stands much stronger with the concept of unfalsifiability than theism does: as theism is the one proposing the hypotheses; atheism is simply refusing to believe in what the hypotheses states.

Atheism states that the hypothesis is false even though it cannot be falsified.

And when there's, we'll say equal evidence (I know there certainly isn't equal evidence for the idea of a god - this is just for arguments sake)

If atheism is merely the dismissal of God, then theism has nothing to provide equal evidence to.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism states that the hypothesis is false even though it cannot be falsified.

Atheism may state that, but no half way intelligent atheist would. An atheist should state that theism is far more unlikely than it is likely.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that theism has the "burden of proof" (even though I hate using that phrase), as it's the one proposing the hypotheses. This is getting increasingly more off-topic.

If atheism is merely the dismissal of God, then theism has nothing to provide equal evidence to.

Atheism isn't the dismissal of God, it's the dimissal of the idea or concept of a god.

Anyway this has gone completely off-topic. Dades is going to go mad when he sees it in the morning.:pac:

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Atheism may state that, but no half way intelligent atheist would. An atheist should state that theism is far more unlikely than it is likely.

In fairness, most atheists speak in exactly such as way as to imply that they deny idea of God.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that theism has the "burden of proof" (even though I hate using that phrase), as it's the one proposing the hypotheses. This is getting increasingly more off-topic.

Only agnosticism lacks a burden of proof, as it proposes nothing.

Anyway this has gone completely off-topic. Dades is going to go mad when he sees it in the morning.:pac:

Why do many (not all) atheists try to infect every thread with the general God argument? Why do you guys feel such a need to take every imaginable opportunity, no matter how tasteless or inappropriate, to scorn or "disprove" the existence of God? I know I've been playing along for a few posts too but false claims must be refuted; it would be better had they not been made.