This Has to Stop

[Thumpalumpacus]

Teaching children to willfully ignore the evidence for God,

lol, which is ... ?

that they are biological robots in a meaningless universe,

Who said anything about robots? This atheist taught his son to think for himself. Also taught him that meaning isn't intrinsic, but supplied.

that all the people the love who have passed will be eaten by worms, and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

Yeah, another canard I didn't espouse.

That is pure evil.

Even if atheists did teach their children that, it's not nearly so evil as teaching them to grovel at the feet of an amoral tyrant who is much more interested in egotistic cocksucking than doing right by his creations. Yet that is what you taught your children, right?

[Amarok]

Who said anything about robots?

According to wooter if your thinking and free will are not the of product of hocus pocus then your a robot . Despite the fact this shits been ripped to shreds over and over . But like everything else Wooter insists he has not been shown wrong about it.

Apologists are a panicky lot.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm not sure what you mean about "teaching them as fact."

Obviously, religious belief requires a certain amount faith and hope, because there is no tangible concrete proof.

I'm not going to lie to my child and tell them that I've seen Jesus or God or whatever. But i do plan on explaining why i have full confidence in their existence.

Teaching them as fact means telling them unequivocally that the God of the Bible exists as if it is something you factually know. That would be lieing to them. Stating that it is your faith (and the faith of perhaps 75% of the population of the U.S.) is much better because that is honest. I rather doubt there are many Christian parents who phrase it that way though because they don't want their child to question it.

I'm sorry you are taking our opinions so personally but this is important. Before a child develops reasoning skills, they are going to believe anything you tell them. It could be Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Thor or even the Great Pumpkin. They aren't going to process it through any kind of logical filter. They are going to assimilate it into their world as fact. You became a Catholic that way while others became Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus - all because of what their parents put in their heads before they had the means to critically parse it. The practice is simply unethical. If one is to truly be a Catholic or adherent of any other religion, it should be because one studied it after acquiring critical thinking skills, compared it to other schools of thought and made an informed decision that it was right for them. Otherwise, you have a person who is programmed like a robot. They are robbed of the chance to follow their own path unless they are able to overcome their programming.

People are not robbots. If they were, then our children would always end up exactly how we wanted/taught them to... which certainly isn't the case. Children grow up, become people of their own, and make their own decisions. Of course, how you bring them up plays a big role in shapping them in general, but equating teaching your child about your faith to "programming" them like computers is a bit ridiculous. No one is saying we are going to do crazy psychological conditioning to them, like in Clockwork Orange. My faith is a huge part of my life and a huge part of who I am, and something that I believe in 100%. Of course I will convey this to my children - along with all the other principles that are important to me. And again, I don't understand all this "facts" talk. It's a religion. It will be taught as a religious belief - aka, something that requires a certain amount of faith, not something that there is concrete proof of.

Also, I don't get you saying that I'm taking this " too personally." When someone says teaching religion to your kids is child abuse, and I personally plan on doing that, and my parents personally did it to me, of course I'm going to voice my disagreement. Because it is literally about me lol. I am one of the people in the group of people you are talking about.

---

Teaching children to willfully ignore the evidence for God, that they are biological robots in a meaningless universe, that all the people the love who have passed will be eaten by worms, and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

That is pure evil.

I would say the last part of that is pure evil (about mocking/ridiculing/wishing death for people of faith). But If someone doesn't think God exists then why would they teach their kids about God?

This goes both ways - atheists thinking parents are bad for conveying their faith to their kids, and theists thinking parents are bad for telling their kids that this life and this physical world is all there is.

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.

[Astonished]

Teaching them as fact means telling them unequivocally that the God of the Bible exists as if it is something you factually know. That would be lieing to them. Stating that it is your faith (and the faith of perhaps 75% of the population of the U.S.) is much better because that is honest. I rather doubt there are many Christian parents who phrase it that way though because they don't want their child to question it.

I'm sorry you are taking our opinions so personally but this is important. Before a child develops reasoning skills, they are going to believe anything you tell them. It could be Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Thor or even the Great Pumpkin. They aren't going to process it through any kind of logical filter. They are going to assimilate it into their world as fact. You became a Catholic that way while others became Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus - all because of what their parents put in their heads before they had the means to critically parse it. The practice is simply unethical. If one is to truly be a Catholic or adherent of any other religion, it should be because one studied it after acquiring critical thinking skills, compared it to other schools of thought and made an informed decision that it was right for them. Otherwise, you have a person who is programmed like a robot. They are robbed of the chance to follow their own path unless they are able to overcome their programming.

People are not robbots. If they were, then our children would always end up exactly how we wanted/taught them to... which certainly isn't the case. Children grow up, become people of their own, and make their own decisions. Of course, how you bring them up plays a big role in shapping them in general, but equating teaching your child about your faith to "programming" them like computers is a bit ridiculous. No one is saying we are going to do crazy psychological conditioning to them, like in Clockwork Orange. My faith is a huge part of my life and a huge part of who I am, and something that I believe in 100%. Of course I will convey this to my children - along with all the other principles that are important to me. And again, I don't understand all this "facts" talk. It's a religion. It will be taught as a religious belief - aka, something that requires a certain amount of faith, not something that there is concrete proof of.

Also, I don't get you saying that I'm taking this " too personally." When someone says teaching religion to your kids is child abuse, and I personally plan on doing that, and my parents personally did it to me, of course I'm going to voice my disagreement. Because it is literally about me lol. I am one of the people in the group of people you are talking about.

---

Teaching children to willfully ignore the evidence for God, that they are biological robots in a meaningless universe, that all the people the love who have passed will be eaten by worms, and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

That is pure evil.

I would say the last part of that is pure evil (about mocking/ridiculing/wishing death for people of faith). But If someone doesn't think God exists then why would they teach their kids about God?

This goes both ways - atheists thinking parents are bad for conveying their faith to their kids, and theists thinking parents are bad for telling their kids that this life and this physical world is all there is.

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.

And that is exactly why dipfucks like you are systematically destroying the world. Your best understanding today is worse than my understanding when I was 5. You want to stunt your kids' cognitive faculties? Fine. But don't you fucking dare say you're being a good parent in doing so or that you're not violating their human rights with your bullshit. Your beliefs and indoctrination have fundamentally warped what it means in your head to love or care about others if that's how you look at things. Your parents could not be bigger assholes for inflicting this on you and no matter how obvious this is, you're not going to take a single positive lesson from all of this to heart. Absolutely pathetic. Congratulations on dooming yet one more generation.

[AFTT47]

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.

[Minimalist]

Teaching children to willfully ignore the evidence for God, that they are biological robots in a meaningless universe, that all the people the love who have passed will be eaten by worms, and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

That is pure evil.

We know your type thinks truth is evil.  This is your fucking problem, not ours.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

OFC we can.......we do it all the time.

If Little Jimmy is a racist shitball we don't say; "Well, Jimmy's daddy really does believe that the south will rise again and that jews and negros are an inferior race.......so it's kosher"

What you -mean- to say, here, is that you don;t think people should fault christians, or you, or -your- mommy and daddy. It's convenient, but of course you don't believe what you just said anymore than I do. I;m willing to bet that you'd even have reservations about people teaching their kids a particularly virulent version of an abrahamic faith.....under the assumption that yours -wasn't- one of those.

[Astonished]

Basically everyone here is saying the same thing as me, but they're not being assholes about it like I am (and yet you're still not going to listen to them...) So you're still dead wrong, CL. Your complete and utter failure to comprehend any of this is a sad testament to the utter mindfuck your parents put on you and which you will inevitably inflict on other innocents. For shame. Literally, the ONLY reason you get to have your way here is because your delusion is shared by a majority of the population. In a sane, rational society that shit would never fly, never even be HUMORED, because of how utterly inhumane and ludicrous the very idea is.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

(1) Teaching children to willfully ignore the evidence for God, (2) that they are biological robots in a meaningless universe, (3)  that all the people the love who have passed will be eaten by worms, (4) and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

That is pure evil.

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 concluding 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.

[Crossless2.0]

(1) Teaching children to willfully ignore the evidence for God, (2) that they are biological robots in a meaningless universe, (3)  that all the people the love who have passed will be eaten by worms, (4) and that they should mock, ridicule and wish for the death of those who believe otherwise....

That is pure evil.

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.