Your Kids

liah

The thread about the new non-denominational school got me thinking.

If you have/had children, how are you/would you raise(ing) them in terms of belief?

Would you teach them to be atheists like yourself and that all religions are glorified fairytales, or would you let them come to their own conclusions?

cls

How does a child come to their own conclusion that a certain type of religion is the truth? It's not possible without brainwashing them. My child isn't born yet, but I plan to try and teach it to come to its own conclusions based on facts and evidence. I will also try my best to teach it why religion is so widespread and why the majority of the country are delusional. It's not going to be easy thats for sure.

liah

I don't think that a child finding religion through brainwashing is necessarily the only way for them to find religion. They could come to it by hearing about it from a friend, book, the internet, school or inventing a god of their own, much the same way as they'd create any other imaginary friend since that's basically all a god is anyway.

I agree with the rest of your post, though. If I were to ever have children I'd probably raise them in regards to belief the same way as my mother did-- she believes in god and all that rot but she never forced it on me, she never really brought it up at all actually. Just let me figure it out for myself. We did go to church for Easter a couple times, though, but that was as far as it went. I think I was all the better for it.

Only thing is there's a major difference between schools. Religion wasn't taught at our schools in Canada (except in history under mythology) until post-secondary, and then as an elective. I never at any point had it forced down my throat outside of a couple weekends a year when I was sent to stay with my über-religious grandparents (the type who go to church literally every single day). I'm not sure how Irish parents would be able to avoid the religious thing because it's so rampant here, especially at school where it seems that religion is spoon-fed every day.

How do Irish atheist parents deal with religion being taught at schools? That would drive me nuts. School shouldn't be a place for religious indoctrination.

Rev Hellfire

I've found ignoring the whole religion thing works wonders for me.

Sure they get introduced to the whole god in heaven with the dead people thing, but its not a big deal. It's not significantly different to the whole Santa story. Once they're older and past the time for fairy tales they can start to form their own opinion on the subject.

Though if you've a bee in your bonnet about the whole religion thang I can see how some people might get their knickers in a twist.

Handsome Bob

As has already been said, it would be quite difficult to let a child come to his own conclusions on religion without brainwashing him/her. I would bring them to up to question their surroundings first of all. What I would also hope, if I ever do have any children, is that I could bring them up to have respect for people regardless of race, gender, sexuality, and religious creed. That to me would be the most important thing because for me, intelligence is wasted if you do not have the "human touch" in expressing your opinions.

death1234567

liah wrote: »

School shouldn't be a place for religious indoctrination.

+1.

JimiTime

cls wrote: »

How does a child come to their own conclusion that a certain type of religion is the truth? It's not possible without brainwashing them. My child isn't born yet, but I plan to try and teach it to come to its own conclusions based on facts and evidence. I will also try my best to teach it why religion is so widespread and why the majority of the country are delusional. It's not going to be easy thats for sure.

Hmmmm.

Flamed Diving

I will teach my children that there are very many faiths in the world, and that no one can really know for sure. So just enjoy riding your bike around in circles and don't worry about it until you are an adult and are capable of making these decisions for yourself.

JimiTime

Personally, i think if you as a parent feel that atheism is important, you'd be neglectful, and pretty much an idiot not to teach your children as such. A parent has had so many years of life. When it comes to spiritual matters, if they have reached their conclusion that for example, christianity, is a steaming pile, then I think it would be irresponsible not to pass on this to your child. Similarly with a Christian. If I was to raise a child, you can guarantee I'm going to act responsibly, and teach him/her about Christ etc.

In these forums there is so much talk of delusion. Personally, I think if you think your atheism is not going to influence your child that is delusional. Again, as above, if you believe all religion is a lie, its important you protect your child from it. You can teach your child to think for themselves, but it will take a while. In the meantime, you must give them bounderies, and make them secure in 'your' knowledge.

studiorat

I suppose the best thing you can do it try not to fcuk them up too much!

Kids, even babies always re-evaluate how they see the world as they develop. Tr4ying to convince them one way or another is a pointless pursuit because hopefully they will come to their own conclusions.

Alyosha

I was raised a Catholic but stopped believing about three years ago at 17. I personally don't see any harm in children aged 6-12 believing in God - simply because at that age they are too young to make their own informed choice regarding religion. For me, having a young child calling him/her self an "Atheist" would be on a par with having an 8 year old "Christian" child.

So in that respect, I would not teach anything but the power of critical thinking. This would then hopefully, at the age of 15-18, lead to any child with half a brain leaning towards Atheism. I was lucky enough to make up my own mind just before Dawkin's published his God Delusion, which once I read reaffirmed my belief that I had chosen the right path. I have since read quite a few books on the subject and finally believe I have an informed opinion which I can stand by - and defend a lot more competently than my "religious" friends and family.

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

Personally, i think if you as a parent feel that atheism is important, you'd be neglectful, and pretty much an idiot not to teach your children as such. A parent has had so many years of life. When it comes to spiritual matters, if they have reached their conclusion that for example, christianity, is a steaming pile, then I think it would be irresponsible not to pass on this to your child. Similarly with a Christian. If I was to raise a child, you can guarantee I'm going to act responsibly, and teach him/her about Christ etc.

Yes. Better to teach an infant that dogmatic belief (whatever it is) is important. Better to manipulate their little minds while they are impressionable. How responsible. I think I will instill my child with Marxist ideology, just to see what happens.

Arf, arf...

cls

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmmmm.

You seem to be suggesting I'm contradicting myself. It's convenient how you selectively left out the part where I said I will try to teach them based on facts and evidence. From there they can come to their own conclusions. You wouldn't be religious by any chance? Its just the picking bits out that suit you and ignoring the rest is a familar trend...

robindch

When my own snowflake showed up 2.5 years ago, I thought it would be possible simply to ignore altogether the topics of gods and goddesses, devils, spirits, ghosts, bogeymen and the whole darn shooting match.

Since then, though, I've noticed that there are a lot of adults out there who view it as their solemn duty either to assume the duty without mentioning it, or more often, simply to ignore entirely my wishes on the topic, and fill my child's mind with one kind of religious offal or another. Hell, one member of my extended family even boasted that this was what they'd do knowing full well that I didn't want it.

In such a climate, one doesn't have any choice but to build up her defenses as best one can in the hope, if not the expectation, that she'll be able to deal with it when it does arrive.

It would be great if religious people would respect my wishes as a parent, but it seems that a certain portion of them simply won't.

Flamed Diving

cls wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting I'm contradicting myself. It's convenient how you selectively left out the part where I said I will try to teach them based on facts and evidence. From there they can come to their own conclusions. You wouldn't be religious by any chance? Its just the picking bits out that suit you and ignoring the rest is a familar trend...

The basis of all religious belief, innit?

Flamed Diving

robindch wrote: »

When my own snowflake showed up 2.5 years ago, I thought it would be possible simply to ignore altogether the topics of gods and goddesses, devils, spirits, ghosts, bogeymen and the whole darn shooting match.

Since then, though, I've noticed that there are a lot of adults out there who view it as their solemn duty either to assume the duty without mentioning it, or more often, simply to ignore entirely my wishes on the topic, and fill my child's mind with one kind of religious offal or another. Hell, one member of my extended family even boasted that this was what they'd do knowing full well that I didn't want it.

In such a climate, one doesn't have any choice but to build up her defenses as best one can in the hope, if not the expectation, that she'll be able to deal with it when it does arrive.

It would be great if religious people would respect my wishes as a parent, but it seems that a certain portion of them simply won't.

They simply can't.

Handsome Bob

robindch wrote: »

When my own snowflake showed up 2.5 years ago, I thought it would be possible simply to ignore altogether the topics of gods and goddesses, devils, spirits, ghosts, bogeymen and the whole darn shooting match.

Since then, though, I've noticed that there are a lot of adults out there who view it as their solemn duty either to assume the duty without mentioning it, or more often, simply to ignore entirely my wishes on the topic, and fill my child's mind with one kind of religious offal or another. Hell, one member of my extended family even boasted that this was what they'd do knowing full well that I didn't want it.

In such a climate, one doesn't have any choice but to build up her defenses as best one can in the hope, if not the expectation, that she'll be able to deal with it when it does arrive.

It would be great if religious people would respect my wishes as a parent, but it seems that a certain portion of them simply won't.

Maybe you should put your foot down and simply just say "my kid, my rules, my house so if you don't like it you can get out and not come near my house again until you learn some respect."

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yes. Better to teach an infant that dogmatic belief (whatever it is) is important. Better to manipulate their little minds while they are impressionable. How responsible. I think I will instill my child with Marxist ideology, just to see what happens.

Arf, arf...

Instill marxist ideology just for the heck of it if you want. Doesn't sound very loving that you'd carry out such experiments on your child. What exactly though, does doing things for 'just to see what happens' have to do with my post though?

The point of my post is quite concise, and quite simple. Even to the simple minded I would think.

If you think that all religion is a lie, and that it is delusion etc etc etc. Then it is only right surely, to inform your child of this no? You disagree?

If you think that for example, that Christ is the truth etc. Then it is only right surely, to teach your child as such no?

Surely not to teach your child such things is neglectful? Surely it is idiocy? I can understand someone who is irreligious rather than atheist taking this blasé approach, as they are more 'meh' about it all. However, if you have made the jump to atheism, or indeed Christianity, then surely your child deserves the benefit of your parental wisdom. We surely want whats best for our children? If we are genuine in our atheism or christianity, surely we would like our children to have this wisdom?

JimiTime

BTW. What is the difference between teaching, and indoctrinating?

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

...If you think that all religion is a lie, and that it is delusion etc etc etc. Then it is only right surely, to inform your child of this no? You disagree?

If you think that for example, that Christ is the truth etc. Then it is only right surely, to teach your child as such no?....

Ya but Jimi some of us know that religion is a lie

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

If you think that all religion is a lie, and that it is delusion etc etc etc. Then it is only right surely, to inform your child of this no? You disagree?

If you think that for example, that Christ is the truth etc. Then it is only right surely, to teach your child as such no?

No. It is my opinion that children cannot fully appreciate concepts such as god, life, eternity, marxism, etc. Nor is it appropriate to expose children to such concepts as hell, revolution, damnation, the universe imploding, etc.

I think it better to teach them how to ride a bike, be generous (for the sake of being good, not because of fear), how to swim, help them with homework, etc.

Simple and effective parenting. No manipulation. No dogma.

cls

JimiTime wrote: »

BTW. What is the difference between teaching, and indoctrinating?

You teach someone based on facts to which they can and should question and doubt and scrutinize. Indoctrinating cannot be scrutinized or questioned. For example, this is the truth because its written in a big old book, end of story.

cls

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No. It is my opinion that children cannot fully appreciate concepts such as god, life, eternity, marxism, etc. Nor is it appropriate to expose children to such concepts as hell, revolution, damnation, the universe imploding, etc.

I think it better to teach them how to ride a bike, be generous (for the sake of being good, not because of fear), how to swim, help them with homework, etc.

Simple and effective parenting. No manipulation. No dogma.

I totally agree but the problem arises when the child comes home talking about god and heaven and why isn't spot the dog allowed into heaven and crying because they did something bad and don't want to go to hell. Realistically, its not something you can avoid.

Flamed Diving

cls wrote: »

I totally agree but the problem arises when the child comes home talking about god and heaven and why isn't spot the dog allowed into heaven and crying because they did something bad and don't want to go to hell. Realistically, its not something you can avoid.

I repeat:

I will teach my children that there are very many faiths in the world, and that no one can really know for sure. So just enjoy riding your bike around in circles and don't worry about it until you are an adult and are capable of making these decisions for yourself.

cls

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I repeat:

I will teach my children that there are very many faiths in the world, and that no one can really know for sure. So just enjoy riding your bike around in circles and don't worry about it until you are an adult and are capable of making these decisions for yourself.

Meanwhile other people will be doing a very good job at convincing them otherwise. I'd like to think your method would work though. Do you speak from experience? Do you have kids?

Flamed Diving

cls wrote: »

Meanwhile other people will be doing a very good job at convincing them otherwise. I'd like to think your method would work though. Do you speak from experience? Do you have kids?

No, but I am in my late-twenties so I guess I should be giving it some thought!

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No. It is my opinion that children cannot fully appreciate concepts such as god, life, eternity, marxism, etc. Nor is it appropriate to expose children to such concepts as hell, revolution, damnation, the universe imploding, etc.

I certainly agree, Of course children don't fully appreciate these concepts. Children don't fully appreciate pretty much any concept. As they grow and mature, and learn to reason better etc, they gain more appreciation etc. This still has little to do with the premise about teaching a child about God or lack thereof.

I think it better to teach them how to ride a bike, be generous (for the sake of being good, not because of fear), how to swim, help them with homework, etc.

What a silly premise. Now you are trying to set up the above in oppostion to other teachings. I learned how to ride a bike, be generous, how to swim and was also helped with my homework. You think someone who tells a child about God neglects these things? Maybe you are thinking that all folk who are christian are like the mother from 'Carrie' or something?

Also, you seem to operate under the presumption, that a christian learns to be good out of fear. Again, a faulty pre-conception. I've never believed in hell btw, so I never had such a thing hanging over me.

Simple and effective parenting. No manipulation. No dogma.

Again, you have neglected answering my point, and seem to have adapted a rather dogmatic approach ironically enough. If you believe that all religion is a lie and you have made the jump to atheism, then why would you not teach your child to be aware of this 'fact'?

cls wrote: »

You teach someone based on facts to which they can and should question and doubt and scrutinize.

I agree. We should teach our children to have an inquiring mind, and not be afraid to ask questions.

Indoctrinating cannot be scrutinized or questioned.

If this is what indoctrinating is, then it is indeed a very unwise course to take. Parenting or otherwise.

For example, this is the truth because its written in a big old book, end of story.

That would indeed be very stupid.

eoin5

cls wrote: »

You teach someone based on facts to which they can and should question and doubt and scrutinize. Indoctrinating cannot be scrutinized or questioned. For example, this is the truth because its written in a big old book, end of story.

This is why we should teach skeptical thinking in secondary schools. We should at least introduce kids to psychological issues like rationalisation and group-think.

Tim Robbins

liah wrote: »

Would you teach them to be atheists like yourself and that all religions are glorified fairytales, or would you let them come to their own conclusions?

For us it will be a mixture. Probably give RC a miss (especially after all the quasi - nazi scandals) I actually can't believe people are so complacent about letting them get away with their systematic abuse of young people. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near young people until the perpretrators have been reprimanded.

Wife Protestant Church goer and I'm atheist. So for junior (due in November this year) it will be a mixture. I'll bring them to other Churches as they get a bit older for educational reasons and just come out with smart *ss vague answers when they are young.

I just don't want extremes. That includes militant christianity and militant atheism.

Mickeroo

JimiTime wrote: »

BTW. What is the difference between teaching, and indoctrinating?

Teaching:

Some people believe in god.

Indoctrination:

You believe in god.

Thats the way i see it anyway. If i ever have kids religion won't really come into it, they'll obviously come into contact with it through other people or school etc If they ask me any questions I'll try answer them honestly, I won't make any secret of the fact that I'm atheist. One thing i will try and teach them is not believe something just because an adult told them it, try and get them to figure stuff out for themselves.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the difference between teaching, and indoctrinating?

Good question.

Teaching is getting people to learn and understand stuff that everybody (or, at least, everybody who's competent to judge) agrees is accurate. This includes maths, physics, chemistry, English, Irish, for'n languages, history (up to a point), geography and so on.

Indoctrination is propagating a religious or political doctrine or idea, generally without a sense of balance or proportion and especially, without encouraging honest questioning, testing or evaluation of the doctrine, or the honest presentation of alternate religious or political doctrines.

robindch

Mickeroo wrote: »

Teaching: There are lots of people who believe that one or more gods exist.
Indoctrination: You must believe in this god here or else you will be thought of as an immoral person and you will burn for all eternity in a place created especially for people like you.

There, fixed

stevejazzx

The biggest probelm I have with it at the moment is the amount of time they seem to waste with it. My Kid is in senior infants and you wouldn't believe the banal stuff he ventures home on nearly a daily basis. I'm starting to think it wasn't a great plan just to ignore the whole thing. I figured 'well I did pretty ok with it' but you'd have to wonder at how they're really dealing with it. It's worrying.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Good question.

Teaching is getting people to learn and understand stuff that everybody (or, at least, everybody who's competent to judge) agrees is accurate. This includes maths, physics, chemistry, English, Irish, for'n languages, history (up to a point), geography and so on.

Indoctrination is propagating a religious or political doctrine or idea, generally without a sense of balance or proportion and especially, without encouraging honest questioning, testing or evaluation of the doctrine, or the honest presentation of alternate religious or political doctrines.

The majority of our educational system is based on regurgitation rather than critical thinking, unfortunately. I include my 1997 Trinity Electronic Engineering degree in this.

I learned more from reading books in my own free time, than a University.

I think Protestant theology contains some elements of getting people to think for themselves which is one reason why they out number the Catholics in the Christianity forum, even though statistically it should be the other way around.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Teaching is getting people to learn and understand stuff that everybody (or, at least, everybody who's competent to judge) agrees is accurate.

So who judges who is competant to judge? Also, accuracy is just subjective to consensus?

This includes maths, physics, chemistry, English, Irish, for'n languages, history (up to a point), geography and so on.

What about moral issues? Your criteria seems to rule that any moral idea's would not be teaching 'or' we'd have to base it on a consensus of people who someone judged were competant to judge (Again, who judges the judges who judged who was competant. It can keep on going:)) Would this be subjective to ones culture?

Indoctrination is propagating a religious or political doctrine or idea, generally without a sense of balance or proportion and especially, without encouraging honest questioning, testing or evaluation of the doctrine, or the honest presentation of alternate religious or political doctrines.

Atheism would need to be included in this for any honest assesment to take place, as atheism is of itself a doctrine. So the question then becomes, as a parent. If you have made the jump to atheism or christianity. So you are genuinely convinced that religion is all lies, or that Christ is Lord etc. Can you remain detached from your worldview in relation educating your child. I personally can't see how this could ever be done. If you are genuinely convinced of your knowledge, then it will influence you, and in turn your child. Also, neglecting to inform your child of such a thing as the lies of religion, or indeed the truth of Christ I still find neglectful.

3greenrizla's

edit- I meant to submit post on another thread.

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

What a silly premise. Now you are trying to set up the above in oppostion to other teachings. I learned how to ride a bike, be generous, how to swim and was also helped with my homework. You think someone who tells a child about God neglects these things? Maybe you are thinking that all folk who are christian are like the mother from 'Carrie' or something. blah blah blah

I stopped reading here. I never suggested the above. Try again.

Mena

It's been pretty hard for us, both being rampant anti-theists. We don't really want to force that upon our daughter, so we hope we've equipped her well enough to know that she needs to make up her own mind on things, based on the available evidence or lack there-of. Get them thinking critically early I say.

Down the line, she needs to make her own choice, and I'll respect that whatever way it goes, because I'll know she came to the decision on her own, without being forced in that direction, and after weighing up the facts.

Well, one can hope anyway.

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I stopped reading here. I never suggested the above. Try again.

No.

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

No.

I'm actually glad.

pts

JimiTime wrote: »

Atheism would need to be included in this for any honest assesment to take place, as atheism is of itself a doctrine.

I actually agree with some of the points you made, but think you're pushing the whole "atheism is a belief system" a bit to far with this one. I think that if you are to be honest with yourself and us, you know that atheism is not a doctrine.

JimiTime wrote: »

Can you remain detached from your worldview in relation educating your child. I personally can't see how this could ever be done. If you are genuinely convinced of your knowledge, then it will influence you, and in turn your child.

I agree that it is very hard not to introduce your own bias when you believe something very strongly. However I think there is one crucial difference between an atheist and theist parent. I would argue that a atheist parent is more likely to admit that they don't know the answer to the question, but then proceed to give their opinion if asked for it.

I think it is very damaging to tell a child that you know there is a God, as a child is biologically predisposed to believing you.

robindch

Folks, politeness please.

JimiTime

pts wrote: »

I actually agree with some of the points you made, but think you're pushing the whole "atheism is a belief system" a bit to far with this one. I think that if you are to be honest with yourself and us, you know that atheism is not a doctrine.

I know atheism of itself is not a belief 'system'. So I'm certainly not pushing it as such. I do however, have no doubt that it is a doctrine.

I agree that it is very hard not to introduce your own bias when you believe something very strongly. However I think there is one crucial difference between an atheist and theist parent. I would argue that a atheist parent is more likely to admit that they don't know the answer to the question, but then proceed to give their opinion if asked for it.

This 'may' be the case. However, in a real world sense its going to be one in the same IMO.

I think it is very damaging to tell a child that you know there is a God, as a child is biologically predisposed to believing you.

If there is a God, then you'd be wrong. Again, your assumption about it being 'damaging' is merely your subjective opinion based on your world view.

My world view is the polar opposite. If you want whats best for your child, and you see atheism as whats best, I don't see an issue with being biased. Similarly with Christianity. We do however, have to get rid of this false assumption some folk have that a Christian upbringing is akin to the mother from 'Carrie'. Unfortunately, some folk have an agenda to accentuate negative stereotypes which propogate ignorance regards Christianity, and paint it in a light that they can attack easily.

pts

JimiTime wrote: »

I know atheism of itself is not a belief 'system'. So I'm certainly not pushing it as such. I do however, have no doubt that it is a doctrine.

How can anything as loosely knit as atheism be a doctrine?

wikipedia wrote:

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.

I can't see any codification of beliefs, body of teachings (and to pre-empt your answer, "the God delusion" doesn't count ), instructions, principles or positions. Unless you can think of a few.

JimiTime wrote: »

This 'may' be the case. However, in a real world sense its going to be one in the same IMO.


If there is a God, then you'd be wrong. Again, your assumption about it being 'damaging' is merely your subjective opinion based on your world view.

My world view is the polar opposite. If you want whats best for your child, and you see atheism as whats best, I don't see an issue with being biased. Similarly with Christianity. We do however, have to get rid of this false assumption some folk have that a Christian upbringing is akin to the mother from 'Carrie'. Unfortunately, some folk have an agenda to accentuate negative stereotypes which propogate ignorance regards Christianity, and paint it in a light that they can attack easily.

Again the point I'm trying to make is that I don't know if there is a God or not, which is exactly what I'd say if a child asked me that question. However children are biologically predisposed to believing what adults tell them, therefore if you tell them that there is a God, they'll believe that. Would you not agree that unless we know an answer to a question, it's better to be honest and tell a child that we don't know. If religion was considered an "opinion based on your world view" (to quote yourself, although in a different context) and was declared to children as such, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But it isn't, it's forced on children from a young age, where they are still very susceptible, which makes it much harder to question when they get older.

In regards to the stereotypical Christian upbringing, I don't beleive it to be anything close to the mother from 'Carrie'.

Naz_st

JimiTime wrote: »

So who judges who is competant to judge? Also, accuracy is just subjective to consensus?

Accuracy is NOT subjective to consensus, that is just a bizarre statement. Accuracy, in science, is subject to evidence, verifiability, testability, falsifiablility and goes through a rigorous peer review process. In fact you have it exactly backwards: Consensus is generally subject to accuracy. I.e. scientists agree because what they agree on conforms to the known laws and facts about the way reality works. Accuracy being subjective is a complete fallacy in Mathematics, and is total nonsense when it comes to scientific facts. E.g. Objects that have mass attract each other. It's called gravity and it isn't true just because a group of scientists think it's true, it's true because that IS THE WAY THE PHYSICAL REALITY WE EXIST IN WORKS.

I also find that thinking very hypocritical from religious people:

Religious Person: "You think that complicated theory X is true just because a group of highly educated and extremely knowledgeable scientists say it's true, but that's just their opinion"

Atheist: "How do you know that Jesus rose from the dead"

Religious Person: "The bible says so".

Oh, ok. So implicitly trusting the unverifiable, inconsistant 2000 year old scribblings of a backwards society makes so much sense, but believing the current, well argued, coherent scientific thinking that has gone through tests, verification and peer review doesn't?!

And another thing, "accuracy is just subjective to consensus", while being completely untrue with regard to science, is an almost definitional attribute of a RELIGION! Talk about getting it all backwards.

What about moral issues? Your criteria seems to rule that any moral idea's would not be teaching 'or' we'd have to base it on a consensus of people who someone judged were competant to judge (Again, who judges the judges who judged who was competant. It can keep on going:)) Would this be subjective to ones culture?

I think most parents (atheist or otherwise) will teach their children their own morals (i.e. the morals of the parents). Unless you believe all atheists are immoral then this works well for everyone.

Atheism would need to be included in this for any honest assesment to take place, as atheism is of itself a doctrine. So the question then becomes, as a parent. If you have made the jump to atheism or christianity.

No. No. No. Atheism is not a doctrine, please stop conflating atheism and mainstream religions. There are lots of different types of people who are atheist (don't believe in a personal God) and are also lots of other things. You can be a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Strong Atheist, an agnostic atheist, an anti-religious atheist, an indifferent atheist and I would even argue a Deist Atheist! Other atheists might disagree with that last one - but that's the whole point! Atheism is NOT a religion. And it's not a doctrine either:

Doctrine:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

Atheism is the LACK OF the above.

So you are genuinely convinced that religion is all lies, or that Christ is Lord etc. Can you remain detached from your worldview in relation educating your child. I personally can't see how this could ever be done. If you are genuinely
convinced of your knowledge, then it will influence you, and in turn your child. Also, neglecting to inform your child of such a thing as the lies of religion, or indeed the truth of Christ I still find neglectful.

Why would anyone bother teaching their child about all the things that aren't true, rather than starting with the things that are? Catholics, for example, would probably choose to educate their children about why catholicism is correct and not bother spending a significant amount of time teaching their children all about Islam so as to point out that it is all wrong. For most atheists this same thinking simply extends to all religions. It's not that they are "teaching them about atheism", they're just not teaching them about theism. There's no need for an atheist parent to teach their children all about Catholicism, say, and then at the end of it all go "and none of that is true".

kiffer

I plan to use every tool at my disposal to attempt raise good, considerate, compassionate, empathic humans...
I'll take moral messages from whatever stories I can... Greek myths, Celtic myths, Norse myths, Christian myths, Fairy Tales, SciFi, Fantasy ... and so on.
I fully intend to cheery pick them to suit my needs.
What I won't do is treat any untrue story (or let's say story with a dubious connection to reality) as true.

The stories of Tyr's sacrifice whilst binding Fenrir, Prometheus's gift of fire, the Brown Bull of Cooley, and any Christian story I may choose to tell will all be presented as bedtime stories to be treated as such.

Children learn their religious stance (at least their initial stance) not from stories but from watching what their parents actually do and from behaviors that are enforced... praying before bed, meals, general worship behaviors.

I'm much more concerned about I'm going to cope if kiffer Jr. comes home from school upset because Timmy MacChristian told them that they will burn in hell fo' evar and evar...


(EDIT: also all this is dependent on the stance of the childrens's mother(s))

JimiTime

pts wrote: »

How can anything as loosely knit as atheism be a doctrine?

There's nothing loosely knit about the core meaning of atheist. A belief that there is No God, gods etc. That is of itself a doctrine. So I'm not saying atheism 'has' doctrines, but rather it is of itself 'a' doctrine.

Again the point I'm trying to make is that I don't know if there is a God or not, which is exactly what I'd say if a child asked me that question.

Grand. If your position is i don't know, then fine. Thats your honest answer to an honest question.

However children are biologically predisposed to believing what adults tell them, therefore if you tell them that there is a God, they'll believe that.

Well, I'm a christian, so God exists. I'm not going to be some bafoon to my child. I'm not going to pretend that maybe God does not exist. So the only honest answer I could give is, yes, God exists.

Would you not agree that unless we know an answer to a question, it's better to be honest and tell a child that we don't know.

I agree. If you really don't know, then say you don't know. If you know he does exist, then say you do know.

If religion was considered an "opinion based on your world view" (to quote yourself, although in a different context) and was declared to children as such, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But it isn't, it's forced on children from a young age, where they are still very susceptible, which makes it much harder to question when they get older.

Again, I see rhetoric like 'forced' here. What constitutes 'forced'?

In regards to the stereotypical Christian upbringing, I don't beleive it to be anything close to the mother from 'Carrie'.

Thats good, I sometimes wonder when i see some of the rhetoric used in these parts.

Goduznt Xzst

I think the biggest issue for an Atheist raising a child will be the death question. How do you nicely explain death to a child? How do you tell them they will never see or speak to their kind grandmother again. I'm sure as a parent you want to sugar coat it somehow but how, without the safety blanket of immortality, do you do this?

I know when I have a child I won't be look forward to this.

stevejazzx

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think the biggest issue for an Atheist raising a child will be the death question. How do you nicely explain death to a child? How do you tell them they will never see or speak to their kind grandmother again. I'm sure as a parent you want to sugar coat it somehow but how, without the safety blanket of immortality, do you do this?

I know when I have a child I won't be look forward to this.

You have to be matter of fact with them. A leaning towards spirituality will do when explaining such.

pts

JimiTime wrote: »

There's nothing loosely knit about the core meaning of atheist. A belief that there is No God, gods etc. That is of itself a doctrine. So I'm not saying atheism 'has' doctrines, but rather it is of itself 'a' doctrine.

Do you not think that by your definition anything can be a doctrine? That would (by your definition) mean that the "doctrine" "I don't believe there to be good evidence that there is a God" be as much a "doctrine" as "The Da Vinci Code is a great book"

JimiTime wrote: »

Grand. If your position is i don't know, then fine. Thats your honest answer to an honest question.

Well, I'm a christian, so God exists. I'm not going to be some bafoon to my child. I'm not going to pretend that maybe God does not exist. So the only honest answer I could give is, yes, God exists.

I guess this is where the contention lies, I believe there is no way you can know that there is a God, and yet fail to produce any evidence for such a claim. To my you merely stating an opinion on the subject of God and as an opinion it shouldn't be taken as gospel (no pun intended) by your children.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I see rhetoric like 'forced' here. What constitutes 'forced'?

Something like: "to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means"

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree. If you really don't know, then say you don't know. If you know he does exist, then say you do know.
.

You don't know, you believe...