Your Kids

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"

coffee_cake

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...

Flamed Diving

I follow the strict doctrines of afairyism, myself.

JimiTime

Naz_st wrote: »

Accuracy is NOT subjective to consensus, that is just a bizarre statement.

It was not a statement, it was a question in response to robins definition of teaching.

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.

I'm not going to get into arguing against your stereotypes.

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.

Under Robins definitions, I don't think this qualifies as teaching.

No. No. No. Atheism is not a doctrine, please stop conflating atheism and mainstream religions.

I don't really care how many No's you put. Atheism of itself, is a doctrine. It doesn't 'contain' doctrine, it 'is' a doctrine.

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:

Actually, that kind of shows the doctrine. You can be Budhist etc, but as long as you believe in the doctrine of there is no God or gods, you are an atheist.

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

Atheism falls into the above quite bleightantly. It is not a belief 'system', but is certainly a belief. If it wasn't a belief, it wouldn't have a name. This whole play on language that its a 'non-belief' really doesn't do anything to remove the fact that it is one. I wont argue with you though, if it rests well with you , then so be it. I don't believe it though. The whole 'then not playing chess is a hobby' arguement, is a silly arguement too, so I'd say just agree to disagree on this or we'll go way OT.

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".

I agree. However, questions of mortality etc will inevitably be raised. Even questions of God which have been heard from others. So, if you as an atheist believe its all mass delusion and lies, what do you do?

As a Christian, I certainly would not be teaching about buddah, Islam etc unless the question was raised.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

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

The people elect the government which allocates funds to the universities which create the syllabuses.

I don't believe there's any serious debate about whether a triangle has three sides, or whether "fear" is the Irish word for "man" or not.

JimiTime wrote: »

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?

Would you trust your kids' school to teach them about what you refer to as "moral issues"? Or would you prefer to do it yourself? Or would you like people like me to make it my job to tell your kids how to decide certain "moral issues" regardless of what your feelings might be?

Or do you think that we should agree to leave each other do what we want to do, so long as we're not breaking any laws?

JimiTime wrote: »

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

No, atheism is not a doctrine. It is a lack of a doctrine.

In the old adage, it's a hair color in the same way that bald is a hair color.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

I am not convinced that atheism is "true", but I am quite certain that christianity is entirely false in every one of its central claims, and destructive in what it does to people individually and as a group. In much the same way, I suspect, as you view that islam and scientology are false and destructive.

And as I said above, I would much prefer to leave the whole religious shootin' match drop, much as I'd like to leave party politics and the military drop, until such a time as my kid's able to deal with the issues more usefully than she can now. But, again as above, the actions of certain self-appointed religious people won't let me do that and I have to take steps to ensure the integrity of her mind until then.

I certainly don't like doing it, but frankly, I don't see I've much choice.

kiffer

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.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I follow the strict doctrines of afairyism, myself.

I don't believe there are gods.
Vs.
I believe there are no gods.

Is not believing in Zeus a doctrine too!?

Naz_st

JimiTime wrote: »

It was not a statement, it was a question in response to robins definition of teaching.

Well then, I hope I answered your question emphatically!

I'm not going to get into arguing against your stereotypes.

Which part did you think was stereotyping? How does a Christian answer the question about why they believe that Christ rose from the dead without fundamentally relying on the accuracy of the bible?

Under Robins definitions, I don't think this qualifies as teaching.

Well, Robin's definition was geared towards explaining the difference between teaching and indoctrination so was perhaps a more narrow definition than normal.

"Teaching" simply means imparting knowledge, objective or subjective.

Don't you think that imparting the concept of what is right and what is wrong to your children qualifies as teaching?

I don't really care how many No's you put. Atheism of itself, is a doctrine. It doesn't 'contain' doctrine, it 'is' a doctrine.

Well I'll have to add another one: No, it's not.

Actually, that kind of shows the doctrine. You can be Budhist etc, but as long as you believe in the doctrine of there is no God or gods, you are an atheist.

Well, I even added the atheist deist example, so even on that score there is an element of interpretation.

Atheism falls into the above quite bleightantly. It is not a belief 'system', but is certainly a belief. If it wasn't a belief, it wouldn't have a name. This whole play on language that its a 'non-belief' really doesn't do anything to remove the fact that it is one. I wont argue with you though, if it rests well with you , then so be it. I don't believe it though. The whole 'then not playing chess is a hobby' arguement, is a silly arguement too, so I'd say just agree to disagree on this or we'll go way OT.

Fine. But the whole "not believing" something being a "belief" itself seems blatently illogical to me: both a catholic and a protestant are "not muslims" - are they the same thing then? No, because they are characterised by their beliefs, not their "non-beliefs".

I agree. However, questions of mortality etc will inevitably be raised. Even questions of God which have been heard from others. So, if you as an atheist believe its all mass delusion and lies, what do you do?

By letting children know that believing things in general should be based on evidence and reason rather than faith.

I mean, what would you say if your child blamed the drawings in indeliable ink on your new wallpaper on their invisible friend "Mr Naughty"? Surely there's as much evidence for the existence of said culprit as for God? Surely the same reason for disbelief on your part applies?

JimiTime

Sorry guys, I understand that you believe atheism is a 'non-belief' and 'not a doctrine' etc. I've heard the arguements, and you've probably heard the other side. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, you can pretty much say what you believe atheism is or isn't. IMO, its a belief. When belief in fairies become's the standard belief of humankind, then afairism may well become the belief that fairies don't exist. For the moment though, atheism is a belief that has propagated, which went against the standard of human history. I don't mind you believing otherwise, I'm just saying, I don't agree, nor will I argue. I've put my side of things on this matter here before, I wont repeat myself.

As for the doctrine scenario. Someone mentioned is believing 'the D Vinci code is a great book' a doctrine. I'd say no. However, if there was a word for people who think the da vinci code ws a great book. Lets call them, idiots, only messin:) Lets call them DaVinciCodists. Then, Davincicodism would be a doctrine. Its a doctrine you'd have to believe in oder to call yourself a davincicodist.

Anyway, OT. I'll certainly take the responsible route to educating my children. I believe Christ is the truth and the way, so I'll be teaching my children about him. I'll also attempt to teach my children to scrutinise, question, and think for themselves. I would hope any of those who see religion as dangerous etc, would be responsible too, and inform their children, if the need arises.

JimiTime

kiffer wrote: »

I don't believe there are gods.
Vs.
I believe there are no gods.

Is not believing in Zeus a doctrine too!?

If you called yourself 'AZeusist', then yes its a doctrine too. As you call yourself atheist though, that doctrine covers you against Zeus too.

Personally, I think some of you try to remove anything with a religious 'sounding' word. 'Doctrine' throws up negative images of school kids being told about hell or something, so you try define yourself out of things. I do it myself tbh. I never say I'm religious, in fact i say I don't like religion. However, I've been told on here, that for all intents and purposes if I'm Christian, I'm 'in a religion'. Technically speaking, its true. I just try disassociate myself from the word, due to the negative connotations it spews up in peoples minds. I think you guys do that alot with language too.

O'Coonassa

JimiTime

Naz_St posted me this link one time http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm most of the people posting here on this forum fit this description "In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist."

So really what they have an active disbelief in is not God but Jehovahgod. They talk about "him" (sic) disparagingly and not It. What I'm saying is that they do indeed have a doctrine and dogma that your Jehovahgod doesn't exist, and really when you look at the facts of the matter the chances of "him" existing are practically zero.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Personally, I think some of you try to remove anything with a religious 'sounding' word.

Only when religious folk try to associate a lack of belief with religious sounding word in an attempt to put them on a level footing. :pac:

kiffer

JimiTime wrote: »

If you called yourself 'AZeusist', then yes its a doctrine too. As you call yourself atheist though, that doctrine covers you against Zeus too.

So...hypothetically what would you call someone that has never been exposed to the concept of God?

Lucky!
but seriously for a moment, atheism is a lack of belief in theism... it is if you will a privative, like darkness or cold it does not really exist.

Personally, I think some of you try to remove anything with a religious 'sounding' word. 'Doctrine' throws up negative images of school kids being told about hell or something, so you try define yourself out of things.

I don't think that's really the problem... in order for atheism to be a doctrine does it not need to be part of a body of beliefs?

So... for example something like the Sympathetic Magick...
Let's say I believe it works, and you don't... we find ourselves in the company of a large number of magickal practitioners.
They all believe and you don't... what do you call yourself?

Is your lack of belief a doctrine just because the belief of those around you is?

I do it myself tbh. I never say I'm religious, in fact i say I don't like religion. However, I've been told on here, that for all intents and purposes if I'm Christian, I'm 'in a religion'. Technically speaking, its true. I just try disassociate myself from the word, due to the negative connotations it spews up in peoples minds. I think you guys do that alot with language too.

hmmm generally I thought the negative connotations were with "organised religion"