Atheism

Interesting thread. Some things have been really bugging me.

The Real Wizard wrote:
I know I will be slammed for this post. Bring it on. I can take it :-)

Okay, I'll bite.

The Real Wizard wrote:
I know you meant well, but telling a child that someone or something else has control over their destiny is one of the worst things we as elders can do to them. We should be empowering children to believe anything is possible and completely within their control. The "god" stories tend to accomplish the exact opposite.

There is no correct answer to this question - arguably the biggest question of all: "what is out there that we don't know about?" Offering simple, packaged answers to complex questions does an extreme disservice to a child. It may be a plausible temporary solution, but down the line it tends to create weak, dependent people.

I could not believe what I was reading.

I'm sorry*, but how exactly is telling kids that they have complete control over everything a healthy message to be sending? Kids shouldn't grow up believing that. They should grow up learning how to attempt to overcome the things that prevent them from controlling what they become in life. You criticize the idea of God to be a simple, packaged answer to a complex question, but how is that any less simple and packaged? I'd hate to break it to you, but the middle bit of Innuendo, while very fun and catchy and a nice little sentiment, is not exactly a realistic portrait of reality.

The Real Wizard wrote:
If that were my kid, my response would be - "nobody knows who or what God is." And then I'd change the subject to something that actually exists. We need to teach our children *how* to think, not *what* to think.

I'm failing to see how your proposed response tells kids how to think any less than Donna's answer.

I think her answer was perfectly acceptable in the context. It answered the daughter's question in, for her, a very satisfying manner without trying to plant any completely crazy ideas in her head. I must have missed the part where she told her kid that fags are evil. I don't know exactly how Donna thinks, though she gave a small hint at it, but I highly doubt she believes strictly in the teachings of the Bible, but is inclined to believe there is a higher power roughly similar to the one described there. If I'm totally off-base that's my bad; it's just what I'm inferring.

One more thing: it's not possible for a parent to raise a child well without some of the parent's beliefs rubbing off. If you think you're going to ONLY tell to child how to think, and not what to think, to put it bluntly, you're wrong. If you're atheist but think that you're giving your children free will over what to believe, some of your atheism is definitely rubbing off on them, whether you like it or not (you probably do).

*EDIT: I'm actually not sorry. My bad.

GratefulFan wrote:
Apparently reaffirming previous non-statement statements is illuminating enough for the Queenzone religion intelligencia.

Oh, is that what this is called now?

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
You are right that I don't like GF, though your "because..." part is nonsense (I have an intense dislike of conservatism, whereas GF appears to be a convinced conservative, that is the long and short of it), but as you might have noticed had you paid attention, I deal with that by ignoring his/her posts whenever I can.

I'm a conservative like Holly is a cattle rancher from Texas. Seriously, how can anybody be that self absorbed?

Ha ha, I had a similar thought when I read that. From the views I've seen you express on this site before, conservative is definitely not the first thing that springs to mind.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Do you deny that he/she is attempting to make the victim of intolerance into the perpetrator? I am of the opinion that magicalfreddiemercury was being unfairly treated, so I responded to that.

She is both the victim of intolerance and the perpetrator of it.

GratefulFan I did not realize I was expected to show proof of my experiences. Nor did I realize I would have to break down each point I’ve made into bite-sized pieces of logic for you to digest. I shared examples of situations I had been in and the point of view I developed because of them. You can choose not to believe what I’ve said, you can assume I have embellished – or as you’ve implied, that I have lied. You can choose to pluck some of my words from some of my sentences and form your own assessment of my meaning. You can call me intolerant and a perpetrator of such. That is your right and I have no desire to alter your perceptions of me because I know the effort to do so would be wasted. You will not see my position as it is intended, yet my position will remain, and I will leave our discussion knowing that I tried to share a point of view that, not surprisingly, was neither accepted, understood, nor tolerated.

Wow, I must be going blind tonight, but I never saw the part in any of GF's comments where she implied in any way that she believed that you were lying. That hasn't been the case. She was criticizing the way you handled the faith-based groups as seeming awfully intolerant, but you really didn't have anything to back yourself up. All you had was a completely off-the-mark assumption. I'm guessing this post means you won't be coming back here anymore, so maybe this post is somewhat meaningless, but the way I saw it you weren't being unaccepted or untolerated. You were just being debated, which is not at all the same thing.

As for myself, I have been taught religion by my parents all my life. It's what I've grown up believing. Yet, I can handle other ideas. I don't see everyone who doesn't strictly obey God's word as in anyway evil or stupid. Some people on here have implied, or outright shouted, that Christianity makes people more close-minded and intolerant. I'd submit that it's not the religion that's doing that, it's just the people themselves. As it stands, religion is one way of raising children; secularism is another. One is not superior to the other: both can raise intelligent kids as well as assholes, and I'd be willing to bet money that the smart:stupid ratios of the two pathways are at least roughly similar. I noticed that TRW said in his first post on this thread that he has no problem with religion, just when people try to force it, yet on later posts it seems an awful lot like he's blasting anyone who holds onto religious beliefs. Sadly, although he has a lot of smart things to say, he tends to cast a lot of blankets over issues that he feels strongly that he is correct about. As a religious person, I strongly contest the statements from him as well as others.

One more thing: it's late at night right now. Tomorrow afternoon I'm going to go back and read this and see if it actually sounds smart or if it's apparent that I'm a bit tired. Until next time! :)

I study the religion of "Bulsaraism."

In this religion, there is a God that's watching over me and I believe in him. That God has a thick mustache and his shiny yellow military jacket watches over me. He also embodies a powerful voice--singing away my sins that I commit.

This is a good example of needing to read an entire thread to understand the points, because the conversation is developing. Example: Real Wizard quoted me but took three of my sentences and removed the middle sentence, without noting he was removing it, thus changing the meaning of what I was trying to say. Well the sentence he left out is the one where I said that I wouldn't have referred my niece (who I explained in my post was four years old at the time) to the Bible in order to explain to her who God was. I haven't even read the entire Bible myself because when I was younger and first exposed to some of the stories about God getting angry - it just didn't seem like anything I could really believe. There were too many inconsistencies. Ha. I do think that there are some beautiful ideas, wisdom and truths there and it seems to be a good reference. And if my niece wanted to read it, she could probably handle it at a certain age when she is better able to understand the symbolism and not take it all literally.

Also at age four if she was hearing people talking about God with no adults having spoken to her about it yet, so that she was curious enough to ask me, I had to give her a concept she could understand so I just did my best. At that same age she couldn't understand that tornadoes didn't go on forever. Try explaining how a tornado gains and loses energy to someone who doesn't understand beginnings and endings yet (well, maybe that was when she was three - ha).

Panchgani wrote:

I do not like having religion crammed down my throat, but I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentiment:

Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

The first thing I did after following Bob's link earlier was look up the prayer that had been on the wall. Did everyone I wondered? Did it matter what had been removed, or was it irrelevant as long as a battle was won? There are reasons for legal avenues with regard to religion in public spaces, and once this became a lawsuit it was inevitable that the court would make the decision that it did. It's more than unfortunate to me though that anyone would read that and find it so marred by "Dear Heavenly Father" and "Amen" that they would pursue having it removed from the school. What was the value of the banner to the students and staff as a whole? To the school alumni? Or it's history? No thinking person would condone the harassment the girl experienced, but religious belief is unlikely to have been the only path to feelings of disappointment, anger and disgust at her actions. Yay for "progress".

The Real Wizard wrote:

So you're basically saying she's not allowed to be "intolerant" of intolerance? Every viewpoint is equal, no matter how ignorant or informed?

More of that circular reasoning. Weren't you the guy up thread talking about the sacrifice of critical thinking? How about a little of it from you? I've been asking for a couple of pages now for somebody to point out what is intolerant about organizing on faith for education. Anybody? Anybody? No?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

GratefulFan I did not realize I was expected to show proof of my experiences. Nor did I realize I would have to break down each point I’ve made into bite-sized pieces of logic for you to digest. I shared examples of situations I had been in and the point of view I developed because of them. You can choose not to believe what I’ve said, you can assume I have embellished – or as you’ve implied, that I have lied. You can choose to pluck some of my words from some of my sentences and form your own assessment of my meaning. You can call me intolerant and a perpetrator of such. That is your right and I have no desire to alter your perceptions of me because I know the effort to do so would be wasted. You will not see my position as it is intended, yet my position will remain, and I will leave our discussion knowing that I tried to share a point of view that, not surprisingly, was neither accepted, understood, nor tolerated.

Waunakonor's post on your "lie" does give me some solace that I'm not a complete failure at communicating, but I do see that my choice of words reasonably led to you to think I was accusing you of dishonesty. I wasn't. I'm sorry that it came across that way.

I'm not of course asking for "proof of your experiences", I'm asking you to feel some responsibility for reasonably supporting specific arguments that arbitrarily diminish things that are important and meaningful to other people. It's clear by now you're not prepared to do so. As you say there is little left for me to do but draw my conclusions. This is a topic that allows you to get away with that with your peers here, but the truth is that if your language, tone and attitudes were applied to a matter like race rather than religion it would feel quite different to people. Honestly I feel sorrow for you, both for the destructive experiences you had with religion and some aspects of what you've done with them. Your avoidant replies to me are intended to relay something like dignity and grace I think, but what they are to me is small.

PS. "Not surprisingly" Really MFM?

.

Panchgani wrote:

I do not like having religion crammed down my throat, but I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentiment:

Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

I fully agree - there's nothing wrong with those words at all. They are simple words of wisdom that can lend themselves to pretty much everything and are undoubtedly excellent words to live by.

But as GF already pointed out, the part that caused the controversy was the "Our heavenly father" at the beginning and the "Amen" at the end.

Without these few words, what's left of the "prayer" isn't really a prayer at all and there definitely wouldn't have been an issue. But by turning it into a religious statement, it carries the implication that one philosophy (that there is a heavenly father) is to be adhered to above all other philosophies. In the 21st century it should be absolutely unacceptable in a public school to have one idea about the unknown given more credence than all others, so removing this prayer absolutely is a major step forward.

Donna13 wrote:

I don't see God as a controlling man in the sky. I see God as a helpful force and this isn't based on someone else's writings or website; this is from my own life experience. I am a free thinking person, and I also have complete confidence in my niece and I am very proud of the person she is becoming. She is both intelligent and adaptive and she is empathetic, and has a very good sense of humor.

That's wonderful to hear !

My concern earlier was the fact that four year olds aren't very adept to metaphysics. If the word "he" is used, they will very likely think it is a person or physical entity that they just can't see, which can plant a seed in their heads that there are people we can see and people we can't see. Something to consider, mayhaps?

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts so I can better understand where you're coming from.

waunakonor wrote:
I'm sorry*, but how exactly is telling kids that they have complete control over everything a healthy message to be sending? Kids shouldn't grow up believing that. They should grow up learning how to attempt to overcome the things that prevent them from controlling what they become in life.

Excellent point. Of course things will happen beyond our control and it's important that we learn how to weather these storms when they come. It's up to us whether or not we take control of this process or if we bestow that responsibility upon someone/something else that may or may not actually exist.

You criticize the idea of God to be a simple, packaged answer to a complex question, but how is that any less simple and packaged?

First we must separate ideas into two categories - "physical," which tangibly exist, and "metaphysical," which almost certainly do not exist (or at best, cannot be proven to exist). Both realms of thought have endless possibilities, but only the former group can somehow be tested to be true or not. The latter, by comparison, can only be accepted on faith, which is the opposite of evidence. There are no packaged answers related to the physical world - over time they can be proven to be true with life experience. The same cannot be said for answers about the metaphysical.

I can tell a story about a dragon I heard about. I can really want it to be true with all my power and might, but that doesn't make it true. So if I propose that it's true without evidence, I can boast that you cannot prove me to be wrong - but I still have the burden of proof. I am wrong by default until I can prove this dragon's existence to be true. The same goes for an idea about a deity. It can be accepted as true on faith, but it absolutely is not true in any literal or rational sense. But this isn't to discredit it, as it has its place and much value can be found in it. They are just two completely different plains of thought that cannot be remotely compared to one another.

The Real Wizard wrote:
If that were my kid, my response would be - "nobody knows who or what God is." And then I'd change the subject to something that actually exists. We need to teach our children *how* to think, not *what* to think.

I'm failing to see how your proposed response tells kids how to think any less than Donna's answer.

Because I'm not actually giving an answer. Mine is the absence of an answer. But it is the most physically honest response - that we do not know. Anything to the contrary is a mere interpretation of something that is unknown and never will be known. One can actually argue that my response encourages more thought because I have not eliminated any possibilities.

"You know son, that's a great question. For thousands of years people have asked that exact same question, and so they came up with ideas that became religions. Some people are happy not knowing the answer, and others think they need an answer."

vs.

"God is [insert false/unprovable explanation here]."

So if this was my kid asking the god question, a gratifying discussion about the known vs. the unknown, and the value of each, would ensue. Kids aren't dumb. Kids are dumbed down by adults who strip them of their creativity by giving them black and white answers to complex questions. Kids are initially open to everything (without getting into nurture vs. nature), so it's important that they're aware of all the options (i.e. gray) at a young age so they know how to deal with black and white when it appears. I didn't learn this until my twenties. Some people never learn it.

One more thing: it's not possible for a parent to raise a child well without some of the parent's beliefs rubbing off.

Absolutely correct - as long as we're aware that beliefs about physical things (social issues, sports, music) are very different from metaphysical things (deities, astrology). It is ever so important not to blur the line between these two very different types of thinking.

If you think you're going to ONLY tell to child how to think, and not what to think, to put it bluntly, you're wrong.

Obviously it's not 100/0, or even 90/10. Naturally it is an ideal, but I think it's incredibly important that the scale greatly tips towards "how" to think instead of "what" to think.

If you're atheist but think that you're giving your children free will over what to believe, some of your atheism is definitely rubbing off on them, whether you like it or not (you probably do).

Not necessarily. Plenty of parents who are atheist or agnostic take their kids to churches, synagogues, mosques and temples as encouragement to find value in different things.

That said - atheism isn't something that "rubs off." We need to get past this idea that atheism and theism are equal opposites. Atheism is not a belief. It is an acceptance of the physical world as it is, and the absence of any philosophy regarding the unknown.

-> Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If a group of children were raised on an island by parents who had never heard of or thought of religion, atheism wouldn't be "rubbing off" on them. They would simply live with what they have. Then one day some visitors show up with a religious or metaphysical idea of some sort. Then and only then would a belief of some sort be considered. Or they may reject it outright. At that point, those who made the proposition would then feel the need to slap a label on them, and the kids would be wondering why.

Furthermore, I hope you're not implying I'm an atheist. In fact, if you read my first post in this thread you'll see that I'm far from it. :-)

waunakonor wrote:
As it stands, religion is one way of raising children; secularism is another. One is not superior to the other: both can raise intelligent kids as well as assholes, and I'd be willing to bet money that the smart:stupid ratios of the two pathways are at least roughly similar.

I'd be curious to see some statistics to support or counter that !

That said, these things probably aren't measurable, since there are so many possible ways to measure intelligence and be intelligent.

But it'd sure be interesting to know. Not that it would change anyone's minds on the subject. Atheists and agnostics would say "told you so!" and religious people would say liberal scientists rigged the quiz with "biased" questions.

GratefulFan wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

So you're basically saying she's not allowed to be "intolerant" of intolerance? Every viewpoint is equal, no matter how ignorant or informed?

More of that circular reasoning.

Seriously - you are so intelligent. If a black person in the 60s was being egged after buying a quart of milk, are you actually suggesting that his "let me buy a quart of milk in peace" is equal to the "take that, nigger" of his abusers?

Because that's exactly what you're saying to MFM on matters of religion.

I've been asking for a couple of pages now for somebody to point out what is intolerant about organizing on faith for education.

Teaching "about" the ideas and their history as opposed to teaching students to adopt the ideas are two very different things. So if it's the former, I'm game.

Religion class in catholic schools is often quite fantastic. Teaches students all about faiths of the world past and present is very valuable. As long as there isn't a "their faith is inferior to our faith" slant, it is incredibly educational and I think should even be part of the public school system. I'd rather have that than three credits of Shakespeare and poetry.