Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Your Kids

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


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

    Fresh minds Nhom Nhom:) Seriously though, I don't know. Its really, how would they define themselves. If I said, 'do you believe in God', and they said 'God?' I don't think I'd label them anything tbh.
    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.

    Again I've given my views on this before. Atheism is IMO a belief that God, gods do not exist. Its a belief because its arrived at from a thought process. the standard throughout human history, is that we have worshipped God or gods. Atheism goes against this historic human standard and says, 'I don't believe it' which itself is a belief. Anyway, as I said, i don't want to get into that arguement.

    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?

    No. It just needs to have an idea that you believe in order for you to label yourself. Saying 'I am atheist' means you adhere to the doctrine, 'I believe that God or gods don't exist'
    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?

    James:) Remember, atheist is not a word made by theists to describe those who don't believe in God. It was a word made by those who didn't believe in God, which labelled them.
    Is your lack of belief a doctrine just because the belief of those around you is?

    If i felt the need to create a word to label my belief that this majick thingy was phooey, then in order to label oneself with this word, you would indeed have to adhere to the doctrine which the word carries.

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

    Not really. The word religion is a dirty word I find. I'm not as bothered about it anymore though. I still point out the difference between religion and faith where appropriate etc. however, my days of trying to convince that I'm not religious are long gone.


  • Options
    #63
    200motels
    Registered Users Posts: 2,603 ✭✭✭200motels


    liah wrote: »
    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?
    I've been an Atheist for about 30 odd years and I was brought up a Catholic so I'd wait until my child is able to come to there own conclusions and then inform her what a crock it all is and if she doesn't believe me so be it I won't ram it down her throat.


  • Options
    #64
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    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...

    That "the majority of the country are delusional" is an opinion not a fact.


  • Options
    #65
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    kiffer wrote: »
    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?

    Atheism is not a doctrine, but atheists have their doctrines.


  • Options
    #66
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    Remember, atheist is not a word made by theists to describe those who don't believe in God. It was a word made by those who didn't believe in God, which labelled them.
    I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that atheist and its precursor atheos in latin were introduced into common vocabulary by christians.
    To begin with, in the sixteenth or so century, atheist was an insult. The Jesuit Gerasse (?) called Luther one, Pierre de Ronsard the Huguenots of the same. It was an insult, an incitement to hatred and violence.

    Anyway, on the original topic, me and the gf have more or less agreed (albeit grudgingly) that she gets to take them to sunday school etc for as long as she can get them to of their own volition. (ie: No threats of the wooden spoon or denial of their right to choclatey goodness etc.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Húrin wrote: »
    That "the majority of the country are delusional" is an opinion not a fact.

    Your opinion that the majority of the country isn't delusional is also an opinion and not a fact.


  • Options
    #68
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    As a parent of 2 young school kids can I shatter a couple of the preconceptions that the religious seem to have?

    1st - religion actually isn't that important. It gets talked about less in our house than penguins do. And I'm perfectly happy with that.

    2nd - Kids believe in all kinds of weirdness. Tooth fairy, santa, bogeymen under the bed - and sometimes god. But if they are educated correctly then they should bring reason and intelligence to bear and they'll soon work out whats real and whats not.

    3rd - IMO the healthiest attitude to have with your kids is an honest answer to an honest question. It can be difficult (my 7 yr old is now in full possession of teh facts of life simply because he was smart enough to ask the right follow on questions, for example). But if a child is old enough to ask the question they are old enough to hear the answer. So on the rare occasions they mention the happy clappy nonsense they get taught in religion class we talk about it, I tell them about other religions and the fact I personally think it's a load of bull. In other words we discuss it in the same way we would discuss anything else, openly but critically.


  • Options
    #69
    cls
    Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭cls


    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 tell them the truth. That their grandmother is now part of nature. She's in the trees, in the wind and even in the water we drink.


  • Options
    #70
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    cls wrote: »
    You tell them the truth. That their grandmother is now part of nature. She's in the trees, in the wind and even in the water we drink.

    Is that so bad? Now that might not be for all people, but assuming you're not a totally insensitive oaf and deliver it in a manner which will not upset them unduly its as good as any other story.

    That been said I wouldn't get unduly hung up on telling them the truth, but that's just me.


  • Options
    #71
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    JimiTime
    Naz_St posted me this link one time http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm ... 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.

    I don't want to belabor the point, but that link reinforces the fact that atheism is not a doctrine, but the lack of a doctrine. And how can you think something that is apparently so ill-defined is a doctrine anyway?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again I've given my views on this before. Atheism is IMO a belief that God, gods do not exist.

    No. It just needs to have an idea that you believe in order for you to label yourself. Saying 'I am atheist' means you adhere to the doctrine, 'I believe that God or gods don't exist'

    Do you think that every doctrine has an corresponding anti-doctrine? Who defines themselves as an non-UFO existance adherent? Would you frequently describe yourself as simply a "not muslim" or "not marxist"?

    But since the thread is being dragged OT by this, I'll just leave it there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Do you think that every doctrine has an corresponding anti-doctrine? Who defines themselves as an non-UFO existance adherent? Would you frequently describe yourself as simply a "not muslim" or "not marxist"?

    But since the thread is being dragged OT by this, I'll just leave it there.

    I'll just end by clarifying this. I've actually said it twice already, but probably in response to others so you may have missed it.

    No, every doctrine does not have a corresponding anti-doctrine. My stance would be, that if you label yourself under the umbrella 'Atheist' then you adhere to one very simple doctrine. 'I believe there is no God or gods'. So in order to call yourself atheist, you believe the above. If I wished to call 'myself' AMohammad, then that would indeed be a doctrinal stance that 'i believe that Mohammad didn't exist. So if someone decides to pin such a label on themselves, then yes, they are adhering to a doctrine. As we know though, most folk don't define themselves by what they don't believe. What they 'do' believe usually takes care of the things they don't believe in.

    Anyway, I'll leave it there too.


  • Options
    #73
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    'I believe there is no God or gods'. So in order to call yourself atheist, you believe the above

    Lack of belief in someone else's belief system is not a belief unless you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe in Allah or Ganesh. Remember that of all the thousands of Gods that have ever been believed in, I just lack belief in one more than you. I specifically don't say 'I believe there is no God or gods' to avoid this claim that it's a belief. What I and most atheists say is "I do not believe there is a god". I'm not saying I have any answers, just that you don't either

    What you're basically saying is that it's ok to say "I lack belief in God" but if you want to call yourself an atheist, it's a belief. But atheism is the lack of belief in God.....


    I had a lot of responses ready for JimiTime but everything he's said has been handled quite nicely. I'm just about out of thanks for the day after reading this thread :)


  • Options
    #74
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    cls wrote: »
    You tell them the truth. That their grandmother is now part of nature. She's in the trees, in the wind and even in the water we drink.

    heh!

    claim-G17621.png

    Yeah, I know, I actually had to post my previous post rather quickly and not finish it as I was heading out.

    I've read a couple of examples on how different parents have dealt with the death question. I personally liked the ones that detail how we didn't mind not existing before we where born so we won't mind not existing after we're gone and that this life we have now is a gift, born out of chance, that many humans that could of existed will never receive.


  • Options
    #75
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Lack of belief in someone else's belief system is not a belief unless you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe in Allah or Ganesh. Remember that of all the thousands of Gods that have ever been believed in, I just lack belief in one more than you. I specifically don't say 'I believe there is no God or gods' to avoid this claim that it's a belief. What I and most atheists say is "I do not believe there is a god". I'm not saying I have any answers, just that you don't either

    What you're basically saying is that it's ok to say "I lack belief in God" but if you want to call yourself an atheist, it's a belief. But atheism is the lack of belief in God.....


    I had a lot of responses ready for JimiTime but everything he's said has been handled quite nicely. I'm just about out of thanks for the day after reading this thread :)


    Again, its just linguistics. Most of the time its not important, I don't really mind what you call yourself, or what you believe it means etc. There are certain times though, where it can become an issue, such as calling the teaching of Christs wisdoms as indoctrination, but the teaching of atheism mere education etc. I leave no more convinced, as I'm sure you guys don't.


  • Options
    #76
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Atheism doesn't "teach" anything, why this confuses you I'm not entirely sure. Atheism isn't a religion. Atheism isn't a belief system. It is, plain and simple, a term for people who don't believe in a god or gods. Just as people who don't like gays are called homophobes, or the human race is called.. well, human, or a person who partakes in sports is an athlete.

    It's a term to describe something. It is not a collective of teachings, and it is not a doctrine. How don't you get that?


  • Options
    #77
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    liah wrote: »
    Atheism doesn't "teach" anything, why this confuses you I'm not entirely sure.

    I never said it thought anything.
    Atheism isn't a religion.

    Indeed, unlike others, I've kept to the strict definition of Atheism. Which of course is not a religion.
    Atheism isn't a belief system.

    Indeed, I've quoted that myself.
    It is, plain and simple, a term for people who don't believe in a god or gods.

    Grand. In order to call yourself an atheist you must adhere to the above taughtology or doctrine.
    Just as people who don't like gays are called homophobes, or the human race is called.. well, human, or a person who partakes in sports is an athlete.

    Or a person who follows Christ a Christian. Yes, I know its a noun thanks.
    It's a term to describe something.

    Again, thanks for the lesson in Nouns. A Christian is someone who follows Christ. A muslim, someone who follows Mohammad etc etc.
    It is not a collective of teachings,

    I was quite concise that I knew this fact.
    and it is not a doctrine. How don't you get that?

    As i said, it 'is' a doctrine. If you call yourself atheist, you adhere to the doctrine that you Don't believe in God or gods. Simple.

    You can call it a taughtology or whatever if you wish. In practical terms its the same thing. However, because it sounds religiousy, I think some folk hate to think of it in such terms. Again though, I'm just repeating myself.


  • Options
    #78
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No, every doctrine does not have a corresponding anti-doctrine... So if someone decides to pin such a label on themselves, then yes, they are adhering to a doctrine.

    Ok, so what you're saying is that you're reasoning is based purely on the semantics of the English language? i.e. because there is a word for it, this particular non-belief is in fact a belief, but non-belief in general is not a belief?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, its just linguistics. Most of the time its not important, I don't really mind what you call yourself, or what you believe it means etc. There are certain times though, where it can become an issue, such as calling the teaching of Christs wisdoms as indoctrination, but the teaching of atheism mere education etc. I leave no more convinced, as I'm sure you guys don't.

    And furthermore, you are taking this position not because it is accurate but in protest to the perceived slight to religion because of the definitional difference between "indoctrination" and "teaching"??? Well at least you're honest about it.

    To clarify the original issue on "teaching" vs "indoctrination"

    Indoctrination (in the current context):

    1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

    Which is distinct from teaching with makes no claims to bias or partisanship. You cannot suggest that instructing a child (or anyone) about Catholicism (for example) with the goal of convincing the child that it is correct is not indoctrination under the purely English definition of the word since ANY religion is by defintion a biased belief because of the multitudes of other religions out there.

    Furthermore, you cannot "teach" atheism, there isn't anything to teach. You most certainly can't "indoctrinate" atheism as it is a non-biased lack of belief (I don't believe in Allah as much as Yahweh as much as Zeus etc)


  • Options
    #79
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Grand. In order to call yourself an atheist you must adhere to the above taughtology or doctrine.

    Ok so lesson 1 is: "Kid, God doesn't exist mmkay."

    What's lesson 2 in teaching your child to be an Atheist?


  • Options
    #80
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, its just linguistics. Most of the time its not important, I don't really mind what you call yourself, or what you believe it means etc. There are certain times though, where it can become an issue, such as calling the teaching of Christs wisdoms as indoctrination, but the teaching of atheism mere education etc. I leave no more convinced, as I'm sure you guys don't.

    Re-write your post considering you just said "teaching of atheism." What the hell is there to teach?

    doc⋅trine

     /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dok-trin] –noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
    And again, atheism IS. NOT. A. DOCTRINE. By any definition. It is not a teaching or collective of teachings and it is not taught or advocated as of a religion or government.

    Everything to do with the definition is about teachings. Stuffs up your argument.


  • Options
    #81
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Ok so lesson 1 is: "Kid, God doesn't exist mmkay."

    What's lesson 2 in teaching your child to be an Atheist?

    How to make a baby burger?

    Seriously though, nothing more. Nor does it matter. 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, its just linguistics. Most of the time its not important, I don't really mind what you call yourself, or what you believe it means etc. There are certain times though, where it can become an issue, such as calling the teaching of Christs wisdoms as indoctrination, but the teaching of atheism mere education etc. I leave no more convinced, as I'm sure you guys don't.

    As has been said, teaching is when you show your child established facts and evidence supported claims, indoctrination is when you teach them your own personal beliefs as if they are established facts and evidence supported claims.

    I can understand why you would see atheism as indoctrination as long as you class it as the "belief that god does not exist" but as has been amply clarified in this thread, that's not what it is


  • Options
    #83
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    liah wrote: »
    Re-write your post considering you just said "teaching of atheism." What the hell is there to teach?

    God does not exist.
    doc⋅trine

     /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dok-trin] –noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
    And again, atheism IS. NOT. A. DOCTRINE. By any definition. It is not a teaching or collective of teachings and it is not taught or advocated as of a religion or government.

    Everything to do with the definition is about teachings. Stuffs up your argument.

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


  • Options
    #84
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    How to make a baby burger?

    Seriously though, nothing more. Nor does it matter. 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.

    If you teach a child that "god doesn't exist until proven otherwise", all you're "indoctrinating" is the scientific method. An admirable goal


  • Options
    #85
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As has been said, teaching is when you show your child established facts and evidence supported claims, indoctrination is when you teach them your own personal beliefs as if they are established facts and evidence supported claims.

    I can understand why you would see atheism as indoctrination as long as class it as the "belief that god does not exist" but as has been amply clarified in this thread, that's not what it is

    So teaching a child that God does not exist is not indoctrination, but teaching a child he does is? As I said, if your position is, 'I don't know', then so be it. If you make the jump to, 'he doesn't exist', then passing this on to your child is teaching them your atheist doctrine.


  • Options
    #86
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So teaching a child that God does not exist is not indoctrination, but teaching a child he does is? As I said, if your position is, 'I don't know', then so be it. If you make the jump to, 'he doesn't exist', then passing this on to your child is teaching them your atheist doctrine.
    atheism is not a doctrine. see the previous 6 pages for reasons why


  • Options
    #87
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If you teach a child that "god doesn't exist until proven otherwise", all you're "indoctrinating" is the scientific method. An admirable goal

    Thats different. Thats imparting a naturalistic philosophy on the child. I.E. That only things proven by the scientific method should be believed, and is indeed another doctrine.


  • Options
    #88
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    atheism is not a doctrine. see the previous 6 pages for reasons why

    Simply put, and once again. I don't agree. For all intents and purposes it is.


  • Options
    #89
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    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. 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. 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.

    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


  • Options
    #90
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Thats different. Thats imparting a naturalistic philosophy on the child. I.E. That only things proven by the scientific method should be believed, and is indeed another doctrine.

    So teaching a child that they shouldn't believe everything people tell them even when they can't back up anything they're saying is indoctrination :confused:

    I'd call that teaching them defence against indoctrination


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    cls
    Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭cls


    JimiTime wrote: »
    How to make a baby burger?

    Seriously though, nothing more. Nor does it matter. 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.
    I think you're confusing atheism with science. you can obviously teach science, whereas atheism is simply a noun.


Advertisement