This Has to Stop

[Amarok]

I'm sorry if this is the experience that you have had with people from the secular community. 

 Regarding (1), I'm more interested in keeping an open-mind and being open to various modes of inquiry.  Based on my observations on AF,  I think that a theist's definition of evidence is different from a non-theist's definition of evidence.  IMO, regarding the former, religious  faith, personal experience, shared experiences, group solidarity/connection, preconceptions about reality, and the claims of holy books, all play a big part in believing that one's god belief is true; while the latter demands that any claim, statement, belief, etc., must be rationally proven (science, logical argumentation/proof, physical evidence, etc.) before it can be accepted as true.  Thus, IMO, while some members of the secular community may be closed off to religious ideas and blindly opposed to them, there are plenty of people in this group who just see things differently than theists and are not willfully ignoring anything; they are simply asserting their individual uniqueness.

Regarding (2) and (3), I'm comfortable admitting that I do not have all of the facts about death, especially in a metaphysical/philosophical sense.

Regarding (4), I'm in agreement with you that such conduct is uncivil and reprehensible: it kills dialog and ensures that people stay entrenched in whatever misconceptions/misunderstandings that they hold toward people who are different than them.

Kernel, that's a sensible and sympathetic response to Neo, just as I've come to expect from you.

However, regarding (2) and (3), it should be noted that Neo has never shown the slightest concern with such honest agnosticism. If one is not a classical theist with all of the meaning and philosophical coherence that allegedly supplies, then one is by default a nihilist. He's ridden that hobby horse into the dust too many times to pretend otherwise now.

Pretty much if you don't believe rubbish your a nihilist . Aside boasting for the five ways (medieval nonsense ) and demanding we debate him on it (he might as well challenge us to debate the 5 elements of witchcraft ) (and considering how poorly he did on the last debate....)

Or trying to compare his religious bunk to actual knowledge claiming fossils are testimony fucking stupid. or Trying to compare biblical studies to real history. Or believe there is an actual alternative to evolution. or whatever crap scott walker has plastered on his ridiculous blog. Or declaring a belief in equality or math to his absurd belief in magic .And don't get me started on his bullshit epistemology .

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]I don't think we can really blame someone for being honest and teaching their kids what they think is true to the best of their own understanding.

That's obviously not true. We can blame the so-called "Christian Scientists", who teach their children to avoid medicine, because of their delusions. We can blame those, who lead their children into becoming suicide bombers - also because of their deeply held belief in magic. Hey, we can even blame those religious prudes, who deny their kids proper sexual education and access to contraceptives, which results - among other things - in increased occurrence of unprotected sex and generally risky sexual behaviors among frustrated, misinformed teens, not to mention unwanted pregnancies...

We can and do blame parents for forcing harmful beliefs onto their offspring. Sure - stunting your children intellectually may be not quite as dramatically and obviously wrong as the above examples, but there's still some fault there, especially if you limit your children's potential in order to stop them from becoming smarter and more educated than you and able to think for themselves. Or if you do it, because you think it'll stop them from masturbation (it won't , by the way).

Unfortunately - for the time being - people, who hold at least some irrational and/or harmful religious beliefs are in the majority in most societies, which is why those societies don't yet openly condemn stupid people, who pass their stupidity onto the captive minds of their children. Besides, for a while still we'll need people to dig ditches and flip Big Macs for less than a living wage - and we clearly don't want those people to be dark-skinned, or otherwise foreign - so perhaps it's a good thing, that certain people handicap their kids in terms of intellect and education...

[Catholic_Lady]

This is one of those areas where there is not going to be any meeting half-way between atheists and theists. Theists truly believe what they believe so it will be a no-brainer for them to pass that along to their children. They are going to see that as a moral obligation. We atheists are going to see that action as a criminal rape of a young mind not yet possessing the tools to defend itself against indoctrination. I don't think we have much hope to reach a consensus here.

In a perfect, secular universe, we would have laws to protect the vulnerable against indoctrination. In practice, I don't think that is remotely practical. Just as I see free-speech as sacred, I think that a parent's right to raise a child as they see fit will also be regarded as sacred. I can't immediately offer an argument to support that but my gut (substantial that it is in my old age) tells me that this is a place where we dare not tread. We can speak out against it but I'm afraid we will have to live with it. We need to respect it.

All we atheists can do here is what we've been doing since the days of Usenet: Spread our individual viewpoints in the hope that we can reach indoctrinated individuals with something that can spark them to think for themselves. It seems to be working pretty well. Scientific surveys over the past 2+ decades show a slow but steady decline in religious belief in America.

CL, I hope you don't get too discouraged when conversation becomes "spirited" as it has in this thread. Some of this is inevitable when discussing a subject such as this. I can't speak for everyone but I personally see you as a rare and very valuable bridge between two very different schools of thought. You manage to charm us with your warmth and wit while apparently seeing something attractive enough in us to stick around here. I think you are a valued member so I for one would like to kiss and make up. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this but most of us love you anyway.

I don't get discouraged. It just shows me just how narrow minded and bigoted some people are, which is good to know and keep in mind from here on out. Thanks for the half compliments nonetheless I suppose, after continuing to tell me I'm going to "criminally rape" my child by conveying my faith to him.

[Astonished]

This is one of those areas where there is not going to be any meeting half-way between atheists and theists. Theists truly believe what they believe so it will be a no-brainer for them to pass that along to their children. They are going to see that as a moral obligation. We atheists are going to see that action as a criminal rape of a young mind not yet possessing the tools to defend itself against indoctrination. I don't think we have much hope to reach a consensus here.

In a perfect, secular universe, we would have laws to protect the vulnerable against indoctrination. In practice, I don't think that is remotely practical. Just as I see free-speech as sacred, I think that a parent's right to raise a child as they see fit will also be regarded as sacred. I can't immediately offer an argument to support that but my gut (substantial that it is in my old age) tells me that this is a place where we dare not tread. We can speak out against it but I'm afraid we will have to live with it. We need to respect it.

All we atheists can do here is what we've been doing since the days of Usenet: Spread our individual viewpoints in the hope that we can reach indoctrinated individuals with something that can spark them to think for themselves. It seems to be working pretty well. Scientific surveys over the past 2+ decades show a slow but steady decline in religious belief in America.

CL, I hope you don't get too discouraged when conversation becomes "spirited" as it has in this thread. Some of this is inevitable when discussing a subject such as this. I can't speak for everyone but I personally see you as a rare and very valuable bridge between two very different schools of thought. You manage to charm us with your warmth and wit while apparently seeing something attractive enough in us to stick around here. I think you are a valued member so I for one would like to kiss and make up. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this but most of us love you anyway.

I don't get discouraged. It just shows me just how narrow minded and bigoted some people are, which is good to know and keep in mind from here on out. Thanks for the half compliments nonetheless I suppose, after continuing to tell me I'm going to "criminally rape" my child by conveying my faith to him.

You're welcome. Also interesting you didn't say 'him or her'; are you just hoping for a boy or, since the last time I read a thread of yours regarding difficulties conceiving, have you succeeded and gotten the ultrasound to confirm the sex of the unborn? Or maybe it's just that lingering taint of sexism the bible contains that says in no uncertain terms you're the inferior of man. Boy, god sure knows what he's talking about, such a lovely equal-opportunity kind of guy.

It wouldn't be half as farcical if you freaks didn't teach your kids a fiction of a fiction. You aren't even being objective about it, glossing over the obscenities, putting their minds through the wringer so they can be happy that Noah's neighbors all drowned instead of being properly horrified. Hell, if you actually DID teach it to them objectively, you'd either end up with psychotic fundamentalists who'd probably turn on you for being a blasphemer, or they'd just turn away from it altogether like a sane person. So not only are you guilty of preying upon their young, undeveloped sensibilities, but you're lying to them about what's actually in the fucking book because you know damn well you can't actually defend it. Tell me again, this is 'the best of your knowledge'. If that's the best you've got, how are you even still alive? Shouldn't you have forgotten how to breathe or thought an oncoming car was just jeebus coming back to give you a big hug?

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok, so I feel bad for my snark and coldness in that last sentence to you AFT because I understand you are trying to be nice to me. But you can't just accuse me and my mom and dad of child abuse and figurative "criminal rape" of our own children, and then say something nice to me and expect our interaction to end in warm fuzzy feelings on my end. It's really not ok. You have the right to your opinion, but I also have the right as well as every justifiable reason to not be on good terms with it. I think you can relate if you think about how you would feel if a theist came in here and said it was child abuse and criminal child rape for a parent to convey their atheism to their child. I imagine you wouldn't feel good about the person who said that, and rightfully so.

---

I don't get discouraged. It just shows me just how narrow minded and bigoted some people are, which is good to know and keep in mind from here on out. Thanks for the half compliments nonetheless I suppose, after continuing to tell me I'm going to "criminally rape" my child by conveying my faith to him.

You're welcome. Also interesting you didn't say 'him or her'; are you just hoping for a boy or, since the last time I read a thread of yours regarding difficulties conceiving, have you succeeded and gotten the ultrasound to confirm the sex of the unborn? Or maybe it's just that lingering taint of sexism the bible contains that says in no uncertain terms you're the inferior of man. Boy, god sure knows what he's talking about, such a lovely equal-opportunity kind of guy.

It wouldn't be half as farcical if you freaks didn't teach your kids a fiction of a fiction. You aren't even being objective about it, glossing over the obscenities, putting their minds through the wringer so they can be happy that Noah's neighbors all drowned instead of being properly horrified. Hell, if you actually DID teach it to them objectively, you'd either end up with psychotic fundamentalists who'd probably turn on you for being a blasphemer, or they'd just turn away from it altogether like a sane person. So not only are you guilty of preying upon their young, undeveloped sensibilities, but you're lying to them about what's actually in the fucking book because you know damn well you can't actually defend it. Tell me again, this is 'the best of your knowledge'. If that's the best you've got, how are you even still alive? Shouldn't you have forgotten how to breathe or thought an oncoming car was just jeebus coming back to give you a big hug?

No, no sexism on my part if that is what you are accusing me of. It's because my child who died was a boy, so he is who I think of when I imagine my future child.

[downbeatplumb]

Teaching children to willfully ignore the evidence for God,

And what evidence would that be? all I get from you is the rather self defeating arguments from ignorance of Aquinas.

that they are biological robots in a meaningless universe, that all the people the love who have passed will be eaten by worms,

Sometimes the truth hurts.

and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

That is pure evil.

You mock yourselves with your silly beliefs and the rest is because believers have a tendency to be rather irritating and is usually just hyperbole.

[Astonished]

No, no sexism on my part if that is what you are accusing me of. It's because my child who died was a boy, so he is who I think of when I imagine my future child.

This is why it breaks my cold, black heart that you can still believe in a god, let alone a GOOD god. Makes me so sick I want to vomit because of the disgustingly tragic irony. But that still makes it impossible for me to respect you, as sorry as I am for nature being the cold, heartless bitch it is.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Raising a child into religion can be a form of abuse depending on how it's done, but I don't think that it is automatically abuse. I was lucky; my parents cherry-picked the nice parts and left it for me to figure out the ugly shit rather than indoctrinate me into it.

I don't think I figured it out the way they thought I would, but they loved me all the same.

[Losty]

I don't necessarily think raising a child into religion is abuse. There are a lot of factors going into it, are you teaching your child to believe uncritally that this is fact without allowing them to learn to question everything? Are you telling your child that if they grow up to disagree with you that you'll disown them or that they'll be tortured for all eternity? Those things seem abusive to me.

[Amarok]

and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

That is pure evil.

No not calling out apologist liars like you would be evil .