Your Kids

dvpower

JimiTime wrote: »

Just because there is more to teach in relation to Christianity, does not make telling your child God or gods do not exist any less a doctrine.

Is telling a child that ostriches don't fly a doctrine? No. Just a simple fact based on the available evidence.

But I think I understand why you put the doctrine tag on it. There's a whole pile of people who swear ostriches do indeed fly despite never actually seeing them leave the ground. So, those of us who know that they don't tend to make a bigger deal of it than it really deserves.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Let's try it this way:

just because somebody somewhere on the planet believes something, does not mean I am indoctrinating my child every time I tell him that there is no evidence to support their claims.

I agree.

If I teach my child that God does not exist, all I'm teaching him is that you should not believe in something simply because it is claimed and what's important is that these claims can be substantiated.

God does not exist is teaching your child the conclusion. Then going on to say that it can't be substantiated is IMO incorrect. It may not have been substantiated in a manner you were looking for, but it has ben substantiated for many.

The claims of christianity cannot be substantiated, therefore the default position is that they are wrong. That's not indoctrination, that's the scientific method.

As i said, teaching your child naturalistic philosophy is teaching them a doctrine. As I said earlier, the word 'doctrine' gets some folks back up due to some negative connotations. Doctrine, however, can be good or bad. In your opinion, you seem to value the doctrines of naturalistic philosphy. You think that such doctrine will be good for your child, so you would choose to teach them as such. Which is fair enough.

edit: Perhaps using the words "god does not exist" is the wrong way to go about it. What I would say is "there is no evidence for the existence of god" and allow them to come to their own conclusion

There is indeed evidence, but maybe not the kind you value.

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

Is telling a child that ostriches don't fly a doctrine? No. Just a simple fact based on the available evidence.

No its not a doctrine. It would become a doctrine if we described people who knew that ostriches don't fly with a word. Lets call this word Flyist. If there was such a noun, then flyists would have to believe in the above fact. We obviously don't do that though. Atheists however do.

But I think I understand why you put the doctrine tag on it. There's a whole pile of people who swear ostriches do indeed fly despite never actually seeing them leave the ground. So, those of us who know that they don't tend to make a bigger deal of it than it really deserves.

Now you're getting it.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

As i said, teaching your child naturalistic philosophy is teaching them a doctrine. As I said earlier, the word 'doctrine' gets some folks back up due to some negative connotations. Doctrine, however, can be good or bad. In your opinion, you seem to value the doctrines of naturalistic philosphy. You think that such doctrine will be good for your child, so you would choose to teach them as such. Which is fair enough.

You know what I've done here? I've fallen into the trap of using your definition of atheism, ie "I believe god does not exist". I spent most of the thread saying that's not what it is and then started using that definition myself when you changed it to the more definite "God does not exist".

So again, lacking belief in god is not the same as saying god does not exist. It's akin to saying "god does not exist until proven otherwise", which is simply critical thinking

JimiTime wrote: »

There is indeed evidence, but maybe not the kind you value.

The kind I value is testable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, ie the only things that are considered evidence by anyone until they want to support their religious beliefs. I'm sure your standard of evidence is exactly the same as mine in everything except your beliefs. You lower your standard because you want to believe

JimiTime

cls wrote: »

I think you're confusing atheism with science. you can obviously teach science, whereas atheism is simply a noun.

A descriptive noun which signifies the adherant does not believe in God or gods.

Naz_st

JimiTime wrote: »

God does not exist.

That is a far more absolutist statement than most atheists would make. I think most atheists would fall into "level 6" of Dawkin's "spectrum of theistic probabilities"

which makes the argument of atheism being a doctrine even more ridiculous as there isn't even as firm an expression of knowledge as you seem to think.

Not at all. If you imbue the principle, position etc on your child, you are teaching them atheism.

What if you teach them the simple principle that things (ideas/concepts/statements) should be more readily believed based on the amount of verifiable evidence in support of them, something which will stand them in good stead throughout life? And that the same reasoning applies to all areas, including the religious one? So how is that "teaching atheism"? In fact most religious parents will probably do the same thing, except they will add the caveat "except for religious beliefs" where "faith" is suddenly a virtue...

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

A descriptive noun which signifies the adherant does not believe in God or gods.

So it's not "A descriptive noun which signifies the adherant believes there is no God or gods" :P

cls

JimiTime wrote: »

A descriptive noun which signifies the adherant does not believe in God or gods.

No. Its just a noun. Like ball, cat, house and even JimiTime.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The kind I value is testable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, ie the only things that are considered evidence by anyone until they want to support their religious beliefs.

I value testimonial evidence if it adds up.

I'm sure your standard of evidence is exactly the same as mine in everything except your beliefs. You lower your standard because you want to believe

Not really. Its just a presumption you hold because you can't see out of your own mind.

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The kind I value is testable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, ie the only things that are considered evidence by anyone until they want to support their religious beliefs. I'm sure your standard of evidence is exactly the same as mine in everything except your beliefs. You lower your standard because you want to believe

Your honour, I believe that the defendent killed her. I can see it everywhere I look. I can see it in his eyes. I feel it.

Case closed.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime, on a completely separate point, your sig is bugging me the more I see it. "Loose sight of the above" should be "Lose sight of the above". The word loose is pronounced the same as goose. Thanks :pac:

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

I value testimonial evidence if it adds up.

Testimonial evidence is notoriously inaccurate even when it hasn't gone through 2000 years and dozens of translations and even when the source of the evidence can be definitively verified and the person themselves can be interrogated.

It's easy to fool people or even to write a book claiming there were loads of eye witnesses so you can go on to fool people who think the same way as you.

This is the second time in 5 minutes I'm going to use this quote:
"no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."

edit: and why do you value the testimonial evidence of christians from 2000 years ago over the testimonial evidence of all the followers of other religions?
and take a look at this post and the end of that thread, it's going the same way:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60412153&postcount=94

JimiTime

Naz_st wrote: »

That is a far more absolutist statement than most atheists would make. I think most atheists would fall into "level 6" of Dawkin's "spectrum of theistic probabilities"

which makes the argument of atheism being a doctrine even more ridiculous as there isn't even as firm an expression of knowledge as you seem to think.

Well if you present level 6 to your child, its not the doctrine of atheism. Its really 'I don't know, but I'd lean towards no'.

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

So if you stand by the above I would not say that you believe the doctrine of atheism, you just think it probable. I find though, that this stance is taken in words, but in actions, alot of the time its number 7 on the spectrum. Alot of, 'I'm 99.999999999% sure'. Leaving a token .0000000001% wiggle room so as not to look arrogant or something.

What if you teach them the simple principle that things (ideas/concepts/statements) should be more readily believed based on the amount of verifiable evidence in support of them, something which will stand them in good stead throughout life? And that the same reasoning applies to all areas, including the religious one?

Then I'd say thats a good lesson.

So how is that "teaching atheism"?

Its not.

In fact most religious parents will probably do the same thing, except they will add the caveat "except for religious beliefs" where "faith" is suddenly a virtue...

You may be right about some religious parents.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Well if you present level 6 to your child, its not the doctrine of atheism. Its really 'I don't know, but I'd lean towards no'.

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

So if you stand by the above I would not say that you believe the doctrine of atheism, you just think it probable. I find though, that this stance is taken in words, but in actions, alot of the time its number 7 on the spectrum. Alot of, 'I'm 99.999999999% sure'. Leaving a token .0000000001% wiggle room so as not to look arrogant or something.

Yay, then we're settled \o/


Your understanding of atheism is an overly-simplistic one often adopted by religious people in an attempt to dismiss it. 6 on the Dawkins scale is what the overwhelming majority of atheists are. A 7 is very rare and his position isn't really much more supported than a theist's. Teaching that would probably be called a doctrine but it's not what any of us believe

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yay, then we're settled \o/


Your understanding of atheism is an overly-simplistic one often adopted by religious people in an attempt to dismiss it. 6 on the Dawkins scale is what the overwhelming majority of atheists are. A 7 is very rare and his position isn't really much more supported than a theist's. Teaching that would probably be called a doctrine but it's not what any of us believe

Fair enough. As i said though, I often see the attitude. 'Well I don't know for sure, but I'm 99%' Which is practically number 7 on that scale. We can split heirs over how its not, but in practical terms, its not really any diferent IMO. The people that fall under number 6 still confuse me though. Why bother labelling yourself then? Why not just say, if the question of God is asked, 'I don't know, but I would lean towards non existance'.

Also, I find the majority of Atheists do define it in simple terms. usually, 'Its the non-belief in God or gods'.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

JimiTime, on a completely separate point, your sig is bugging me the more I see it. "Loose sight of the above" should be "Lose sight of the above". The word loose is pronounced the same as goose. Thanks :pac:

I'm never gonna change it now:p:)

dvpower

me wrote:

Is telling a child that ostriches don't fly a doctrine? No. Just a simple fact based on the available evidence.

JimiTime wrote: »

No its not a doctrine. It would become a doctrine if we described people who knew that ostriches don't fly with a word. Lets call this word Flyist. If there was such a noun, then flyists would have to believe in the above fact. We obviously don't do that though. Atheists however do.

Strange. As soon as we start describing it, it become a doctrine? So in languages that don't have a word for 'atheism', it isn't a doctrine?

JimiTime wrote: »

I value testimonial evidence if it adds up.

What does that mean? If it conforms to other testestimonial evidence that you've previoulsy accepted?

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Your honour, I believe that the defendent killed her. I can see it everywhere I look. I can see it in his eyes. I feel it.

Case closed.

How about.
Witness 1: I saw the defendant killed her.
Witness 2: i saw the defendant kill her.
Witness 3: I saw the defendant kill her
Witness 4: I saw the defendant kill her.

Court: Ok, what if we stick pins in your eyes, or hammer nails into your hands and feet, throw rocks at you. Kill some of you etc etc.

Witness thats left: I swear to you I'm telling the truth.

Court: Kill him.

Others: Were those witnesses deluded or liars?

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

What does that mean? If it conforms to other testestimonial evidence that you've previoulsy accepted?

Nope. If you want to know what it means, figure it out yourself, I'm not interested in a fight with your preconceptions.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

How about.
Witness 1: I saw the defendant killed her.
Witness 2: i saw the defendant kill her.
Witness 3: I saw the defendant kill her
Witness 4: I saw the defendant kill her.

Court: Ok, what if we stick pins in your eyes, or hammer nails into your hands and feet, throw rocks at you. Kill some of you etc etc.

Witness thats left: I swear to you I'm telling the truth.

Court: Kill him.

Others: Were those witnesses deluded or liars?

How about:
Witness 1: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 2: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 3: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 4: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Ok, what if we stick pins in your eyes, or hammer nails into your hands and feet, throw rocks at you. Kill some of you etc etc.

Witness thats left: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Kill him.

Others: Were those witnesses deluded or liars?

I'd say deluded

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Fair enough. As i said though, I often see the attitude. 'Well I don't know for sure, but I'm 99%' Which is practically number 7 on that scale. We can split heirs over how its not, but in practical terms, its not really any diferent IMO. The people that fall under number 6 still confuse me though. Why bother labelling yourself then? Why not just say, if the question of God is asked, 'I don't know, but I would lean towards non existance'.

Also, I find the majority of Atheists do define it in simple terms. usually, 'Its the non-belief in God or gods'.

I suppose the same way someone can call themselves a christian without having absolute certainty of god's existence

b28

Teach them to make their mind up,
teach them there's many different religions in the world and not one of them can be right, and also the fact they don't have to believe.
I don't know what to tell mine. It's something trivial to me.

dvpower

me wrote:

What does that mean? If it conforms to other testestimonial evidence that you've previoulsy accepted?

JimiTime wrote: »

Nope. If you want to know what it means, figure it out yourself, I'm not interested in a fight with your preconceptions.

Don't see why not. This thread has been a battle with your preconceptions for the last few pages.

JimiTime

dvpower wrote: »

Don't see why not. This thread has been a battle with your preconceptions for the last few pages.

then more fool you, thats 2-1 to me. Honestly though, I'm not getting into it. If thats your feeling on it, so be it.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How about:
Witness 1: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 2: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 3: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 4: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Ok, what if we stick pins in your eyes, or hammer nails into your hands and feet, throw rocks at you. Kill some of you etc etc.

Witness thats left: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Kill him.

Others: Were those witnesses deluded or liars?

I'd say deluded

I like this game:)

How about.
A body was found with laser beam scars on it and it was 24 stories up. The window was broken from the outside with tissue from the defendants body found on the broken glass.

Witness 1: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 2: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 3: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 4: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Ok, what if we stick pins in your eyes, or hammer nails into your hands and feet, throw rocks at you. Kill some of you etc etc.

Witness thats left: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Kill him.

Others: Were those witnesses deluded or liars?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

I like this game:)

How about.
A body was found with laser beam scars on it and it was 24 stories up. The window was broken from the outside with tissue from the defendants body found on the broken glass.

Witness 1: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 2: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 3: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes
Witness 4: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Ok, what if we stick pins in your eyes, or hammer nails into your hands and feet, throw rocks at you. Kill some of you etc etc.

Witness thats left: I saw the defendant fly into the room and kill her with laser beams from his eyes

Court: Kill him.

Others: Were those witnesses deluded or liars?

Turns out the building had both a lift and stairs which the person with the laser could have used: deluded

always take the natural explanation over the supernatural one

Naz_st

JimiTime wrote: »

Fair enough. As i said though, I often see the attitude. 'Well I don't know for sure, but I'm 99%' Which is practically number 7 on that scale. We can split heirs over how its not, but in practical terms, its not really any diferent IMO.

Progress!

Also, to be fair I pointed out in my first post on this thread and in others that atheism is simply "not believing theism" but the degree of "non-belief" and what beliefs can be held along with it are not definitionally part of the word. I think most atheists would classify themselves as agnostic atheists ("level 6") since "level 7" is basically declaring knowledge that can't be objectively declared. As Richard Dawkins puts it:

[he] would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7" Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

The people that fall under number 6 still confuse me though. Why bother labelling yourself then? Why not just say, if the question of God is asked, 'I don't know, but I would lean towards non existance'.

That's more a 5 on the scale I would say.

To switch the question around, what level would you describe yourself on the scale? Are you a "level 1" or "level 2"? If you're a "level 2" then perhaps that answer helps clear up why atheists would generally fall into "level 6"?

Also, I find the majority of Atheists do define it in simple terms. usually, 'Its the non-belief in God or gods'.

Yes. For all practical purposes that is effectively what a "level 6" is:
"I find the existence of God to be highly unlikely so, while I can't be absolutely certain, I do not believe in his existence as there is insufficient evidence to persuade me"
rather than
"I am certain that God does not exist".

(note that you could insert any concept in place of "God" in those statements and it works just as well, e.g. UFOs, telekinesis, etc)

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Turns out the building had both a lift and stairs which the person with the laser could have used: deluded

always take the natural explanation over the supernatural one

So even when 'all' the evidence points towards something else, your preconception must win. That, IMO, is not valuing evidence. Rather, its valuing your naturalistic philosophy over the evidence as you have already concluded that this philosophy is the only way. Your preconception, even though you're only a 6 on the atheist scale, wins out over the available evidence. You interpret the eveidence to try suit your preconception. This seems more like a 7 on the atheist scale IMO. As i said, in practical terms, I don't find alot of 6's.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

So even when 'all' the evidence points towards something else, your preconception must win. That, IMO, is not valuing evidence. Rather, its valuing your naturalistic philosophy over the evidence as you have already concluded that this philosophy is the only way. Your preconception, even though you're only a 6 on the atheist scale, wins out over the available evidence. You interpret the eveidence to try suit your preconception. This seems more like a 7 on the atheist scale IMO. As i said, in practical terms, I don't find alot of 6's.

No, fallible eye witness testimony is going one way but the immutable laws of nature are going the other. Immutable laws win
As anyone who works in insurance will tell you, ask 6 witnesses what happened and you'll get 6 unique stories

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, fallible eye witness testimony is going one way but the immutable laws of nature are going the other. Immutable laws win
As anyone who works in insurance will tell you, ask 6 witnesses what happened and you'll get 6 unique stories

Laws of nature 'immutable' ey? You'd have to be sure first of all, that your 'knowledge' of these laws were immutable surely?

As for the insurance. What if you had 6 witnesses all testifying the same incident? that would be my point. i don't think it can simply be dismissed as, 'Well they must have just got it wrong'. Sure, scepticism is fine, but there comes a point.