Raising Children as Atheists?

[UlidEyes]

I plan on having kids someday, accidentally perhaps, and before I do I'd like to ask you all for help. I was raised a Christian and have only recently liberated myself to full-fledged atheism. Which makes me wonder...

Should I raise my children as atheists?

Although I now despise the concept of organized religion, I am grateful for the moral lessons it helped teach to me (regardless of how I perceive them now).
I also took comfort in once knowing that when mommy and daddy died they'd be in heaven until I got there.

Being older, I am content without expecting an afterlife, but as a kid? It might have freaked the hell out of me. "No God? No heaven? What is my purpose? WTF is life all about? I'm too young to understand, I need an easy answer- QQ alot"

Without a god to provide solace, I don't know if I would have been as susceptable to enjoying life. Then again, if I was raised an athesit, perhaps I would be even better off today than I am now.

So...
What's a good plan? Blunt science/logic? Gradual ease from spirituality to reality? Savage lies?

If any atheists have children and are currently raising them the same I'd love to hear your input.

Thanks!

-Box, of few posts

[ConstantineX]

Do you teach children how to love? How to eat? All you do is have to guide them in spiritual and moral matters. Religion is just a dogmatic segway to ideal values that most people share.

[luckyme]

One of the most fulfilling moments in your life will be when your kids tell you, "thanks for giving us the moral compass by being such a great model."
Scaring them into behaving well or promising them great future rewards doesn't help mold a moral character, in fact just the opposite. It's not enough for someone to do the right thing ( that can be achieved by a gun to their head).

luckyme

[Magic_Man]

I have some similar questions, as I will probably have kids of my own in a few years. For the atheists out there, what do you do when your child comes home from school and says "Daddy/Mommy, Johnny at school was talking about church and God and some guy named Jesus. What's that all about?" I've always assumed I would just explain about the idea of religion in general, something like "well, no one is quite sure what the answer is, but a lot of people think that...." And then of course they would say "Daddy, what do you believe?" At that point I'm not sure whether to tell them or not. Anyone have experience with this/similar conversations?

~MagicMan

[IronUnkind]

You can't go wrong if you just lie to them at every turn.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Should I raise my children as atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not dogmatically, no. Raise them to be critical, rational thinkers and expose them to the beliefs of the major religions. You can't raise them to be atheists as you yourself have found out - the Christianity you were raised with didn't stick.

[ QUOTE ]
So...
What's a good plan? Blunt science/logic? Gradual ease from spirituality to reality? Savage lies?

[/ QUOTE ]
Honesty and evidence-based thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
If any atheists have children and are currently raising them the same I'd love to hear your input.

[/ QUOTE ]
My children are too young for the topic to come up yet. We plan on introducing Santa but as make-believe from the beginning. 'What happens to people when they die ?' - Nobody knows for sure, but this is what we think and why, stuff like that.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My children are too young for the topic to come up yet. We plan on introducing Santa but as make-believe from the beginning. 'What happens to people when they die ?' - Nobody knows for sure, but this is what we think and why, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honesty works. You just don't have to go faster than they need with depth of explanation. When anyone asks a question, and especially in the case of kids, it doesn't mean they want or need the full explanation down to the spin of electrons. The goal is to answer the question at the level they are asking it without lying about it.
Kids learn by osmosis not lecture. Keep your word to them, have them keep theirs to you. Tell them the truth ( at their level of detail and tangents). Include them in your adult groups when it makes sense so they can see how to interact honestly with others, how to handle discussions with disagreements, etc.

Let them be kids, but don't treat them as unintelligent, they're not.

luckyme

[kurto]

I say tell them what you believe.

Reminds me of when I was young. We were going to visit some friends who were Jewish. (We were raised Christian) We asked our mom what was going to happen to them since they weren't Christian. My mom said they weren't going to heaven... but we shouldn't talk about it.

Nothing is more comforting to a young kid then going over to dinner with family friends that you were just told are going to burn in hell.

Raise them to be rational atheists.

[keith123]

raising children as atheists is sinful.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
raising children as atheists is sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a serious post? I can never tell.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise them to be rational atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately raise them to be rational. To be inquisitive, critical, and logical. Encourage them to seek out unbiased answers for themselves, instead of following what your parents did and "training" them to follow a certain religion just because.
I think, as far as morality is concerned, you can certainly portray morality based on reason rather than religion.

IMO.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
I plan on having kids someday, accidentally perhaps, and before I do I'd like to ask you all for help. I was raised a Christian and have only recently liberated myself to full-fledged atheism. Which makes me wonder...

Should I raise my children as atheists?

Although I now despise the concept of organized religion, I am grateful for the moral lessons it helped teach to me (regardless of how I perceive them now).
I also took comfort in once knowing that when mommy and daddy died they'd be in heaven until I got there.

Being older, I am content without expecting an afterlife, but as a kid? It might have freaked the hell out of me. "No God? No heaven? What is my purpose? WTF is life all about? I'm too young to understand, I need an easy answer- QQ alot"

Without a god to provide solace, I don't know if I would have been as susceptable to enjoying life. Then again, if I was raised an athesit, perhaps I would be even better off today than I am now.

So...
What's a good plan? Blunt science/logic? Gradual ease from spirituality to reality? Savage lies?

If any atheists have children and are currently raising them the same I'd love to hear your input.

Thanks!

-Box, of few posts

[/ QUOTE ]

i am (was) in a similar situation. my two kids are adults now. our tactic was to encourage godism (for most of the postive reasons you've cited); our primary emphasis was about making high quality decisions their entire lives - where quality was always measured in terms of very real quality of life right now and for the future (and not imaginary quality of life). we also advised them to be very serious about constructing a healthy definition of god and to stay away from abusive definitions.

the difference between you and i is that i am a godist (one who wants god to exist even if there is no proof as such for a given definition).

it is true that if you lay a certain kind of definition of god on the table that i might be atheistic toward that god; a humorous example is a monty python style god that might have the following clause in the definition:

"thou shalt not clench thy fist toward heaven and say "nee!" for god shall surely smite thee and turn thee into a lamb or sloth or carp or anchovie or orangutan or breakfast cereal or fruit bat" - 2nd Armaments 1:1

this of course is a warning against blaspheming the python definition; and it's quite easily proven false in repeatable lab experiments - i.e. go outside and raise your fist toward the sky and yell "nee!" and observe yourself remaining quite human - take a witness and a camera if you're really serious (and yes some have done this).

many people of faith are already atheistic toward many definitions except their own. i wonder how many people who reject the definition of the god they were given as a child (that now call themselves atheists) are actually godists that haven't yet found a definition of god worthy of embracing.

ray

[UlidEyes]

[ QUOTE ]
We plan on introducing Santa but as make-believe from the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great idea.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
the difference between you and i is that i am a godist (one who wants god to exist even if there is no proof as such for a given definition).

[/ QUOTE ]

There is another way that is not merely either "wanting" or proving the existence of God, that is to have knowledge of the reality a priori, as is the case with so many perceptions used to get in a cab from the curd or eat a bowl of cereal in the morning.

[ QUOTE ]
this of course is a warning against blaspheming the python definition; and it's quite easily proven false in repeatable lab experiments - i.e. go outside and raise your fist toward the sky and yell "nee!" and observe yourself remaining quite human - take a witness and a camera if you're really serious (and yes some have done this).

[/ QUOTE ]

Monty Spaghetti Monster's Flying Circus.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I plan on having kids someday, accidentally perhaps..
Should I raise my children as atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

The good news for society is that atheists have less than replacment fertility rates. Buh Bye.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I think, as far as morality is concerned, you can certainly portray morality based on reason rather than religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has a stunning track record that includes Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think, as far as morality is concerned, you can certainly portray morality based on reason rather than religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has a stunning track record that includes Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a believer of myths.

[kurto]

Hitler was no atheist.

Your bevy of posts shows no concern for accuracy but you can still try once in awhile.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan on having kids someday, accidentally perhaps..
Should I raise my children as atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

The good news for society is that atheists have less than replacment fertility rates. Buh Bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you're an anti-evolutionist or not, but if you are, this is funny. Do you see why?


Also, atheists do not necessarily beget atheists, nor are atheists necessarily begotten of the same. The good news for society is that anyone who wants to can become an atheist.

~MagicMan

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan on having kids someday, accidentally perhaps..
Should I raise my children as atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

The good news for society is that atheists have less than replacment fertility rates. Buh Bye.

[/ QUOTE ]
you're a douchebag.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
This has a stunning track record that includes Stalin, Mao

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, the authors of great reason-based moral systems that....wait, they didn't do anything but rule by power. Might makes right is NOT reason-based morality. If you want morals derived by reason, look at Western Europe, or Warren Buffet (biggest charitable donation in history), or Lance Armstrong (LiveStrong charity), or Bill and Melinda Gates (biggest charitable foundation in history), etc. The correlation between social ills (teen pregnancy, STDs, murder, etc.) is consistently positive with religiosity. The only social ill that correlates negatively is suicide. This trend not only holds when comparing the U.S. to western Europe or Japan but also between U.S. states. (see here (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html) for country comparisons. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_percentage_of_population_cl aiming_no_religion) is a list of U.S. states ranked by % claiming no religion. Feel free to check any particular social ill and how it correlates vs. the list of states. I did so here (http://battlecryforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83&st=20#), but I don't think the post can be viewed without registering. The bottom 3 states had a 58% higher rate of teen pregnancies than the top 3, 72% higher rate of Chlamydia (I picked the first STD listed, others were similar), and 81% higher rate of homicide.)

Secular morality works just fine, thank you very much. Also, I fixed your post to exclude the Christian you inadvertently included.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think, as far as morality is concerned, you can certainly portray morality based on reason rather than religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has a stunning track record that includes Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its always fun when HeavilyArmed posts.

[ QUOTE ]
Even today, when I refer to Hitler's Catholicism in conversation or a speech, it immediately becomes apparent that I have said something "not quite nice," and I am often challenged. Nontheists, I then explain, know that many modern tyrants, whether petty tyrants such as Richard Nixon, or more successful tyrants such as Hitler, have regarded themselves as exemplary Christians, an estimate their followers had no trouble accepting. Hitler's religiosity -- he was a Catholic until his death -- is often glossed over, but it is critical in understanding his motivation.

I have often reflected, wistfully, on how much happier modern history might have been had Hitler been brought up as an atheist, an agnostic, or, at least, a Unitarian. Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.

When Hitler narrowly escaped assassination in Munich in November, 1939, he gave the credit to providence. "Now I am completely content," he exclaimed. "The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." Catholic newspapers throughout the Reich echoed this, declaring that it was a miraculous working of providence that had protected their Fuhrer. One cardinal, Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich, "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape." The Pope also sent his special personal congratulations!

Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture." Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for "a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future."

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.


[/ QUOTE ]

from www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html)

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]


The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]


[/ QUOTE ]

[dana33]

I think you are not considering the child's context here. No young child independently comes up with the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God, or the philosophical questions allegedly answered by religion. It is only because we're surrounded by people who believe in God that the issue even arises.

Once my young son encounters friends who tell him about God and Jesus and so on, I plan to reply, "Those are just made up people -- like the Cat in the Hat -- they're not real. But some people think they are. Isn't that funny?" Until at least his late pre-teens, I am confident (based on other atheist parents I have spoken to) that that will be enough.

A couple of anecdotes show that kids have more sense than we often give them credit for. When my friend's daughter first encountered Jesus, he told here something along the lines of what I wrote above. But his daughter thought Jesus was cool (in the same way she thought Ariel the Little Mermaid was cool). So she got a little picture of Jesus which she wore around her neck and paraded around with. Knowing her atheist parents, I found this a complete hoot. And of course, after a few weeks, she tired of Jesus and went on to something else.

When she was a little older, but still pretty young (maybe 6 or so), the issue of God's existence somehow came up. In an exasperated voice, she said, "I don't know why people believe God exists. I can PROVE God doesn't exists. Just pray for something to happen. Then when it doesn't happen, you'll see that there is no God." (Obviously, there is a logical flaw in her "proof," but I think it demonstrates a level of common sense, and an orientation to facts and evidence, that is lacking in many adults.)

[She]

lol.. Nice.

[keith123]

wow dana. that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do. she knows that she will be ridiculed by her parents whenever she ponders her own existence. nice. and by the way, the reason we wonder about God isn't because someone brought it up to us, but that it is in our nature...who told the first people about God?...oh wait...maybe you ARE right.

EDIT: Now that I have made a real post, I should point out that my previous post was in fact a total joke.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
Once my young son encounters friends who tell him about God and Jesus and so on, I plan to reply, "Those are just made up people -- like the Cat in the Hat -- they're not real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, I thought it was a pretty universally accepted fact that Jesus did actually exist, and that it was just a matter of who you believed him to be. (A regular man, a lunatic, a prophet, or God himself.)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very commonly held belief in the United States today. It spells out some of the most deeply held core beliefs of the Christian Supremacist movement in the United State. George Bush definitely agrees with this statement, as do some Christian Supremacist posters on this forum, such as "HeavilyArmed", and several others that come to mind.

If a survey were done in the United States to see how many, and to what extent, people agreed with this statement (without them knowing who said it) the measured level of agreement would be shockingly high.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see your point. How is it more?

See just a few clips of Jesus Camp to see some hardcore manipulation.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see your point. How is it more?

See just a few clips of Jesus Camp to see some hardcore manipulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

average = goes to church on Christmas

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see your point. How is it more?

See just a few clips of Jesus Camp to see some hardcore manipulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, seriously.

On a related note...Which is more likely? Atheist parents who break off all ties with a child who announces that he/she is now a theist? Or theist parents who break off all ties with a child who announces that he/she is now an atheist (or who has converted to another religion)?

I've known a few atheists who are no longer welcome in their theist parents' homes. I've yet to meet a theist who can claim the reverse.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan on having kids someday, accidentally perhaps..
Should I raise my children as atheists?

[/ QUOTE ]

The good news for society is that atheists have less than replacment fertility rates. Buh Bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

But luckily we receive more than enough reinforcements from defectors?

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see your point. How is it more?

See just a few clips of Jesus Camp to see some hardcore manipulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, seriously.

On a related note...Which is more likely? Atheist parents who break off all ties with a child who announces that he/she is now a theist? Or theist parents who break off all ties with a child who announces that he/she is now an atheist (or who has converted to another religion)?

I've known a few atheists who are no longer welcome in their theist parents' homes. I've yet to meet a theist who can claim the reverse.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would agree that it is more likely for a theist to denounce his child than an athiest, but i bet there are some extreme athiests out there who think religion is more than just stupid, and actually hate anyone that is religious. these people would be the equivalent of the Christian extremists (probably a smaller percentage of athiest extremists vs Christian extremists, but both groups are relatively small). i think these extremist athiests would denounce their children if they became very religious, especially if they became missionaries or evangelicals.

either way, i was comparing dana's view with the average Christian view, not with an extremist view.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once my young son encounters friends who tell him about God and Jesus and so on, I plan to reply, "Those are just made up people -- like the Cat in the Hat -- they're not real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, I thought it was a pretty universally accepted fact that Jesus did actually exist, and that it was just a matter of who you believed him to be. (A regular man, a lunatic, a prophet, or God himself.)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, it is debateable. I just did a quick search and the first thing I found...

from- http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
" No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts."

I checked Wikipedia- the articles I briefly scanned showed biographies of the historical Jesus... but they seem to all be made by constructing a timeline based on Bibilical text.

A few other quick finds-
There is a lengthy article in About.com in the atheism heading. Most evidence again seems to rely on the Gospels. Which are not exactly historical documents.

[ QUOTE ]
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I quickly scanned a few Christian sites to see if they listed any evidence. The evidence they listed was writings of people mentioning Jesus 100 years or more after the death of Jesus.

It appears there's little evidence to corroborate that he was, in fact, even a 'reglar' person.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
wow dana. that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do. she knows that she will be ridiculed by her parents whenever she ponders her own existence. nice. and by the way, the reason we wonder about God isn't because someone brought it up to us, but that it is in our nature...who told the first people about God?...oh wait...maybe you ARE right.

EDIT: Now that I have made a real post, I should point out that my previous post was in fact a total joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? This isn't any more manipulation that you telling your children that Batman is a comic book character or that there isn't really a Man in the Moon. Its absurd to say you are POSITIVE there isn't a Man in the Moon but I'm guessing you don't consider it manipulating your child's mind to do so anyway.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I plan on having kids someday, accidentally perhaps, and before I do I'd like to ask you all for help. I was raised a Christian and have only recently liberated myself to full-fledged atheism. Which makes me wonder...

Should I raise my children as atheists?

Although I now despise the concept of organized religion, I am grateful for the moral lessons it helped teach to me (regardless of how I perceive them now).
I also took comfort in once knowing that when mommy and daddy died they'd be in heaven until I got there.

Being older, I am content without expecting an afterlife, but as a kid? It might have freaked the hell out of me. "No God? No heaven? What is my purpose? WTF is life all about? I'm too young to understand, I need an easy answer- QQ alot"

Without a god to provide solace, I don't know if I would have been as susceptable to enjoying life. Then again, if I was raised an athesit, perhaps I would be even better off today than I am now.

So...
What's a good plan? Blunt science/logic? Gradual ease from spirituality to reality? Savage lies?

If any atheists have children and are currently raising them the same I'd love to hear your input.

Thanks!

-Box, of few posts

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll probably do fine, but you do seem to have some lingering concern (e.g."Without a god to provide solace, I don't know if I would have been as susceptible to enjoying life.") that Atheists might be "missing out" on something essential that religious people have. To be totally liberated from religion, you need to truly realize that Atheists are NOT "missing out" on anything essential that religious people have.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
i would agree that it is more likely for a theist to denounce his child than an athiest, but i bet there are some extreme athiests out there who think religion is more than just stupid, and actually hate anyone that is religious. these people would be the equivalent of the Christian extremists (probably a smaller percentage of athiest extremists vs Christian extremists, but both groups are relatively small). i think these extremist athiests would denounce their children if they became very religious, especially if they became missionaries or evangelicals.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting thought. As my wife and I are trying to bring a baby into the world, it would be interesting to see how I would feel if my child somehow became a fundamentalist. (I wouldn't say I hate religious people but I find them very depressing and disappointing.)

Though I have religious people in my family who I still love and admire. I am sure the religious folk in my family are just as disappointed in what they perceive as my shortcomings (I'm going to hell) as I am in theirs (myth worship).

I still think Dana's view seems reasonable. I don't know that its MORE manipulative. I mean... my Mom taught me that my non-believing friends were going to hell. When we were bad we were told that God sees all. This is pretty 'normal' Christian manipulation. (not to mention... gays are bad, all other religions are wrong (many think its pretty normal to say they're outright 'evil', etc.)

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow dana. that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do. she knows that she will be ridiculed by her parents whenever she ponders her own existence. nice. and by the way, the reason we wonder about God isn't because someone brought it up to us, but that it is in our nature...who told the first people about God?...oh wait...maybe you ARE right.

EDIT: Now that I have made a real post, I should point out that my previous post was in fact a total joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? This isn't any more manipulation that you telling your children that Batman is a comic book character or that there isn't really a Man in the Moon. Its absurd to say you are POSITIVE there isn't a Man in the Moon but I'm guessing you don't consider it manipulating your child's mind to do so anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? There is a HUGE difference between the Man in the Moon, Flying Spagetti Monster, Easter Bunny, Etc and God. And that is that the huge majority of the adult educated world doesn't believe in all that other stuff.

If your really believed that all religious people were just stupid (at least in that regard), then laughing at them would be a terrible message to send your children. You would laugh at the generally stupid or generally confused? But maybe you are more of an extremist than I thought, and there is more to your athiesm than you let on.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would agree that it is more likely for a theist to denounce his child than an athiest, but i bet there are some extreme athiests out there who think religion is more than just stupid, and actually hate anyone that is religious. these people would be the equivalent of the Christian extremists (probably a smaller percentage of athiest extremists vs Christian extremists, but both groups are relatively small). i think these extremist athiests would denounce their children if they became very religious, especially if they became missionaries or evangelicals.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting thought. As my wife and I are trying to bring a baby into the world, it would be interesting to see how I would feel if my child somehow became a fundamentalist. (I wouldn't say I hate religious people but I find them very depressing and disappointing.)

Though I have religious people in my family who I still love and admire. I am sure the religious folk in my family are just as disappointed in what they perceive as my shortcomings (I'm going to hell) as I am in theirs (myth worship).

I still think Dana's view seems reasonable. I don't know that its MORE manipulative. I mean... my Mom taught me that my non-believing friends were going to hell. When we were bad we were told that God sees all. This is pretty 'normal' Christian manipulation. (not to mention... gays are bad, all other religions are wrong (many think its pretty normal to say they're outright 'evil', etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that teaching your children there is no God is more manipulative than teaching your children that there is a God. But the average Christian parent in America (I think) would not try to make their child feel ridiculous when they wondered about God. Wondering about God is one thing that all people have in common, no matter how they are raised. Laughing at people who do so is very manipulative, as much as saying your child will go to hell if he has questions about God (and only a tiny portion of Christian parents would do that).

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a HUGE difference between the Man in the Moon, Flying Spagetti Monster, Easter Bunny, Etc and God. And that is that the huge majority of the adult educated world doesn't believe in all that other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other people believe and how many of them there are is 100% irrelevant to the actual evidence. And in this case, there is an equal amount of evidence supporting the existence of any of these entities. An angry mob of religionists claiming otherwise does not change this fact.

As for your previous question of how religion originated, it almost certainly did NOT originate in the minds of young children, but in the minds of adults seeking to understand the nature of the universe and (being in a pre-scientific age) having no better answers than what religion provided.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow dana. that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do. she knows that she will be ridiculed by her parents whenever she ponders her own existence. nice. and by the way, the reason we wonder about God isn't because someone brought it up to us, but that it is in our nature...who told the first people about God?...oh wait...maybe you ARE right.

EDIT: Now that I have made a real post, I should point out that my previous post was in fact a total joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? This isn't any more manipulation that you telling your children that Batman is a comic book character or that there isn't really a Man in the Moon. Its absurd to say you are POSITIVE there isn't a Man in the Moon but I'm guessing you don't consider it manipulating your child's mind to do so anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? There is a HUGE difference between the Man in the Moon, Flying Spagetti Monster, Easter Bunny, Etc and God. And that is that the huge majority of the adult educated world doesn't believe in all that other stuff.

If your really believed that all religious people were just stupid (at least in that regard), then laughing at them would be a terrible message to send your children. You would laugh at the generally stupid or generally confused? But maybe you are more of an extremist than I thought, and there is more to your athiesm than you let on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would warp them? I think Jerry Springer is stupid, and I don't have much regard for those who watch his show. I imagine I wouldn't hesitate to be vocal about that. Is that going to warp my children? I try not to be elistist but at some times we all think we are better than some other group. Its impossible to shield your children from this. Trust me, no matter what your beliefs, it will be obvious to your kids which groups you find to be silly and which groups you find to be on the right track.

My example of the Man on the Moon was apparently wrong, since I thought you were making the point that disabusing children of silly notions was harmful. You were making the point that disabusing them of POPULAR notions is harmful. While that might be true, I don't plan to teach my kid to pick on the weaker kids in order to be popular. HOW DARE I?!?!

[MaxWeiss]

There is a difference between teaching your kid to laugh at and disrespect people who believe silly things and just teaching the kid that those things are silly.

[vhawk01]

Yeah, and dana's post just said he would tell his kid that they aren't real but that some people think they are. He then added in the comment "Isn't that funny" which apparently keith took great offense to, but keep in mind he is only talking to his 6-11 year old. He isn't saying "Aren't they inferior drooling morons?"

[MaxWeiss]

Whether or not some people who are models of "evil" in todays society were atheists or theists of some sort has little bearing on the truth or rationality of the belief and whether it is right to teach that to a child.

Edit: And yes I think all those people you listed were evil! I just re-read my post and that didn't quite come through clear enough!

[MaxWeiss]

no

[MaxWeiss]

Best post on this thread.

[peritonlogon]

I was raised Atheist and those questions never really bothered me the way they seemed to bother other (christian) children. My sister's only big objection, since becoming an adult, is that a large element of our cultural herritage (allegories, references, religious poetry) is missing from her experience of art and culture (she feels like those catholic shots in Mafia movies just aren't as moving to her as they're supposed to be). I did not have that same objection...but then again, I read a lot, read the bible and did not consider myself to be missing much. Put the bible and a play by Sophocles in front of me and I'll pick up the latter...just better writing. Most people mis cultural allusions to Sophocles but they don't seem to mind. When Atheist children feel that their is not some great cosmic purose, just tell them many are the wonders but none so wonderous as man, and if that doesn't quench the enui, show them some picture taken by the Hubble telescope.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, I thought it was a pretty universally accepted fact that Jesus did actually exist, and that it was just a matter of who you believed him to be. (A regular man, a lunatic, a prophet, or God himself.)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may or may not be wrong, but you are definitely splitting hairs.

When we say that Santa Claus is make-believe, we do not mean that the historical figure St. Nicholas never existed. We mean that the fellow who flies around the world distributing gifts via chimneys does not exist.

Similarly, when I tell my child that Jesus is make-believe, I'm not taking a position on whether there was a historical figure of that name. I simply mean that the Jesus of Christianity -- born of a virgin, ascended to heaven, died for our sins and all that -- is fictional.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow dana. that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do. she knows that she will be ridiculed by her parents whenever she ponders her own existence. nice. and by the way, the reason we wonder about God isn't because someone brought it up to us, but that it is in our nature...who told the first people about God?...oh wait...maybe you ARE right.

EDIT: Now that I have made a real post, I should point out that my previous post was in fact a total joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? This isn't any more manipulation that you telling your children that Batman is a comic book character or that there isn't really a Man in the Moon. Its absurd to say you are POSITIVE there isn't a Man in the Moon but I'm guessing you don't consider it manipulating your child's mind to do so anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? There is a HUGE difference between the Man in the Moon, Flying Spagetti Monster, Easter Bunny, Etc and God. And that is that the huge majority of the adult educated world doesn't believe in all that other stuff.

If your really believed that all religious people were just stupid (at least in that regard), then laughing at them would be a terrible message to send your children. You would laugh at the generally stupid or generally confused? But maybe you are more of an extremist than I thought, and there is more to your athiesm than you let on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would warp them? I think Jerry Springer is stupid, and I don't have much regard for those who watch his show. I imagine I wouldn't hesitate to be vocal about that. Is that going to warp my children? I try not to be elistist but at some times we all think we are better than some other group. Its impossible to shield your children from this. Trust me, no matter what your beliefs, it will be obvious to your kids which groups you find to be silly and which groups you find to be on the right track.

My example of the Man on the Moon was apparently wrong, since I thought you were making the point that disabusing children of silly notions was harmful. You were making the point that disabusing them of POPULAR notions is harmful. While that might be true, I don't plan to teach my kid to pick on the weaker kids in order to be popular. HOW DARE I?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

oh no, i suppose i have to repeat myself. telling your children that pondering their existence is a laughable offense is not a good thing for them. if religious families humiliate their children for wondering if God exists, then they are just as wrong as athiest families humiliating their children for wondering why they exist and where they come from. and laughing at people who do ponder their origins before your child has such ponderings is much worse than laughing at them after the fact.

just because most intelligent people think athiests are blind to all non-physical evidence of God, doesn't mean those people should tell their children that athiests are silly idiots who have no sense. and while some religious families i'm sure do this, it is not even close to the norm. and just because there are some intelligent people that think thiests are clinging on to something they hope to be true but have no good reason to think actually is true, doesn't mean those people should call theists silly idiots that have no sense, even if they really believe thiests are silly idiots.

[UlidEyes]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll probably do fine, but you do seem to have some lingering concern (e.g."Without a god to provide solace, I don't know if I would have been as susceptible to enjoying life.") that Atheists might be "missing out" on something essential that religious people have. To be totally liberated from religion, you need to truly realize that Atheists are NOT "missing out" on anything essential that religious people have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I understand that now but I didn't as a kid.

What I meant, more specifically, was that god was a resource. It was easy to use a god as a buffer, onto which I could deflect negative emotion- thru communication with it and concession to its power over me. Because of that, I could go to sleep feeling safe and secure, and then wake up refreshed and ready to go out and play.

I'm not saying it would be depressing but it could lead to much slower recovery times from burning questions and heavy emotions.

On the other hand- without a god and/or church, I would have probably had to rely on my parents a lot more than I did, which would have strengthened our relationships. I would have also had to force myself to think rationally and to rely on intuition to help shape reality by a much greater magnitude. Without an easy fallback, I'd probably build character faster and learn how to improve self-worth. Considering those possibilities, it could suggest an even more fulfilling and essential life without a god than with one.

[madnak]

There's a world of difference between telling your children there is no God and telling them to ridicule those who ponder the meaning of existence. I absolutely don't intend to have kids, but if I did I'd do everything in my power to encourage them to "ponder existence," in fact I think there'd be no better way to support their atheism.

As for intelligent people, I'd give my children the facts. I'd tell them that most highly intelligent people are atheists, and that most religious fundamentalists are uneducated and from isolated rural communities. Certainly I wouldn't call those who believe "silly idiots," or even "savages" (as Christians are wont to do regarding, for example, those who worship Yoruba deities). I would say that they have cultural beliefs that involve this and that and the other, and leave it there.

[bocablkr]

I was raised an atheist and consider myself an extremely moral person. I try to raise my children to be critical thinkers and to be as knowledgeable in science as they can.

I let them draw their own conclusions but when asked for my opinion freely tell them about my own views of God.

So far, one is an atheist and the other too young to really be sure one way or the other. They are both very moral and caring children.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a HUGE difference between the Man in the Moon, Flying Spagetti Monster, Easter Bunny, Etc and God. And that is that the huge majority of the adult educated world doesn't believe in all that other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other people believe and how many of them there are is 100% irrelevant to the actual evidence. And in this case, there is an equal amount of evidence supporting the existence of any of these entities. An angry mob of religionists claiming otherwise does not change this fact.

As for your previous question of how religion originated, it almost certainly did NOT originate in the minds of young children, but in the minds of adults seeking to understand the nature of the universe and (being in a pre-scientific age) having no better answers than what religion provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree.

there is a very strong correlation between the parent/child relationship and godology.

and in primitive cultures there is a very strong correlation between adult/environment relationship and godology.

the parents are god to a young child.
the environment is god to primitive parents.

at some minimum threshold of generations,
a culture will develop it's own godology
as children watch parents and
as parents watch the world they live in.

ray

[twonine29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has a stunning track record that includes Stalin, Mao

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, the authors of great reason-based moral systems that....wait, they didn't do anything but rule by power. Might makes right is NOT reason-based morality. If you want morals derived by reason, look at Western Europe, or Warren Buffet (biggest charitable donation in history), or Lance Armstrong (LiveStrong charity), or Bill and Melinda Gates (biggest charitable foundation in history), etc. The correlation between social ills (teen pregnancy, STDs, murder, etc.) is consistently positive with religiosity. The only social ill that correlates negatively is suicide. This trend not only holds when comparing the U.S. to western Europe or Japan but also between U.S. states. (see here (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html) for country comparisons. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_percentage_of_population_cl aiming_no_religion) is a list of U.S. states ranked by % claiming no religion. Feel free to check any particular social ill and how it correlates vs. the list of states. I did so here (http://battlecryforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83&st=20#), but I don't think the post can be viewed without registering. The bottom 3 states had a 58% higher rate of teen pregnancies than the top 3, 72% higher rate of Chlamydia (I picked the first STD listed, others were similar), and 81% higher rate of homicide.)

Secular morality works just fine, thank you very much. Also, I fixed your post to exclude the Christian you inadvertently included.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lance Armstrong visited the UW-Madison campus...saw him at a local bar...looked to me like he wasn't very moral or portraying himself in a good light. He was simply rubbing all up on a bunch of college girls, while completly ignoring anyone(male or female) who didn't look like they came straight out of a Stuff/FM magazine. As portrayed in the media...i assumed he would have more class.

[keith123]

most intelligent people are definitely NOT athiests. i suppose that most athiests are probably intelligent though. other than that, i pretty much agree with what you said madnak. it is quite a different attitude than dana's. bocabldr post seems fine as well. just to say it again, it isn't so much what you teach your kid that i was talking about, but the way you teach them. and some religious people can be a heck of a lot more damaging than what dana plans to do, however the average parent that believes in God would don't ridicule their child or preach hate. if a religious person on this board made a post like dana's, dana would have been much more criticized (or ridiculed himself).

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
...however the average parent that believes in God would don't ridicule their child or preach hate. if a religious person on this board made a post like dana's, dana would have been much more criticized (or ridiculed himself).

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be mistaking my original post for someone else's. Please point out where I advocate "ridiculing my child". Please point out where I advocate "preaching hate". Use quotations please.

This is clearly an emotionally loaded issue for you. To remove the emotionalism, try replacing "God and Jesus" with "Santa Claus" in my original post. See if you find it as offensive.

(BTW, do you actually have a child? Do you know anything about the cognitive development of children? If not, you might consider witholding your uninformed opinion on the "damage" I am supposedly doing to my son by helping him understand the difference between the real and the imaginary.)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
most intelligent people are definitely NOT athiests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean by "intelligent," but there's plenty of evidence that most actually are. And the rest typically have very original takes on spirituality. You'd be hard-pressed to find a single top scientist or mathematician who is also a religious fundamentalist. I'm sure they're out there, but they're very rare.

At any rate there's an established correlation.

[ QUOTE ]
i suppose that most athiests are probably intelligent though. other than that, i pretty much agree with what you said madnak. it is quite a different attitude than dana's. bocabldr post seems fine as well. just to say it again, it isn't so much what you teach your kid that i was talking about, but the way you teach them. and some religious people can be a heck of a lot more damaging than what dana plans to do, however the average parent that believes in God would don't ridicule their child or preach hate. if a religious person on this board made a post like dana's, dana would have been much more criticized (or ridiculed himself).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that ridicule is almost always unwarranted.

[keith123]

I never said you were preaching hate. I said the average parent that believes in God would [not] ridicule their child or preach hate. That was in response to comparisons by other posters of athiest parents to religious parents. However, there are only a few things that you can guarantee your child will wonder about and think about at some point in his/her life, and God is one of them. You want her to feel silly for having natural and important questions about life. Replace the feelings that their might be a God with feelings that there really might be a Santa Claus, and you will see that the analogy fails, as all of humanity does not have a natural wonder about whether a guy flies around on reindeer once a year. However all of humanity does have a natural wonder about whether their is a higher power than themselves and a spiritual nature to the world (which religious people call God). It is more like laughing at your child if she had questions about her own consciousness or free will (though those questions would probably come a little later in life). Even if you firmly believe that consciousness and free will are illusions, it is wrong to laugh at your daughter or others for wondering whether they exist.

[keith123]

oh and more intelligent people are athiests than are religious fundamentalists. but i do not believe that there are close to as many highly intelligent people (top 5% lets say) that are athiests compared to those that believe in some type of higher power/spiritual entity.

[madnak]

Actually, there's strong cultural evidence that "God" in the sense we Westerners use the term isn't something people naturally think about, and overwhelming evidence that "free will" is only an invention of certain cultures, not an inherent topic of consideration. There have been cultures in which it has been automatically accepted that fate determines events, and in which the idea of a "free choice" would only have gotten confused stares.

Of course, all human cultures have some kind of religious and spiritual foundation, but those foundation very frequently fail to resemble those of modern Christianity. It's very unlikely that anyone would spontaneously reach conclusions similar to those of Christianity - throughout history it has basically never happened. This isn't the thread to get into the implications of that, but it's important not to turn a blind eye to it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
but i do not believe that there are close to as many highly intelligent people (top 5% lets say) that are athiests compared to those that believe in some type of higher power/spiritual entity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking more like top .002%. For top 5% you're definitely correct.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
oh and more intelligent people are athiests than are religious fundamentalists. but i do not believe that there are close to as many highly intelligent people (top 5% lets say) that are athiests compared to those that believe in some type of higher power/spiritual entity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you are saying here but it seems like you are saying that there are more believers than non among the smartest group of people. If that is so, then that is incorrect. I have researched this (you can too) and have links in some of my other posts that show the majority of the smartest people on the planet (especially the 'great' scientists) are non-believers.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
However all of humanity does have a natural wonder about whether their is a higher power than themselves and a spiritual nature to the world (which religious people call God).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are millions of religious people that have a 'spiritual' hangup but they don't call it god or anything like it. The wonder about higher beings etc is not something that is natural, it is cultural.
A child raised in a secluded secular society ( or by chimps for that matter) would have a lot of the normal social behavior and beliefs we have and he wouldn't likely be spending any time wondering about gods. The fact that it's a common cultural approach ( but far from universal) does not make it Natural.

luckyme

[keith123]

well, if something happens in every culture from the dawn of man, it is hard to dismiss it as cultural.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow dana. that is much more manipulation of the mind than the average religious parents would do. she knows that she will be ridiculed by her parents whenever she ponders her own existence. nice. and by the way, the reason we wonder about God isn't because someone brought it up to us, but that it is in our nature...who told the first people about God?...oh wait...maybe you ARE right.

EDIT: Now that I have made a real post, I should point out that my previous post was in fact a total joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? This isn't any more manipulation that you telling your children that Batman is a comic book character or that there isn't really a Man in the Moon. Its absurd to say you are POSITIVE there isn't a Man in the Moon but I'm guessing you don't consider it manipulating your child's mind to do so anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? There is a HUGE difference between the Man in the Moon, Flying Spagetti Monster, Easter Bunny, Etc and God. And that is that the huge majority of the adult educated world doesn't believe in all that other stuff.

If your really believed that all religious people were just stupid (at least in that regard), then laughing at them would be a terrible message to send your children. You would laugh at the generally stupid or generally confused? But maybe you are more of an extremist than I thought, and there is more to your athiesm than you let on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would warp them? I think Jerry Springer is stupid, and I don't have much regard for those who watch his show. I imagine I wouldn't hesitate to be vocal about that. Is that going to warp my children? I try not to be elistist but at some times we all think we are better than some other group. Its impossible to shield your children from this. Trust me, no matter what your beliefs, it will be obvious to your kids which groups you find to be silly and which groups you find to be on the right track.

My example of the Man on the Moon was apparently wrong, since I thought you were making the point that disabusing children of silly notions was harmful. You were making the point that disabusing them of POPULAR notions is harmful. While that might be true, I don't plan to teach my kid to pick on the weaker kids in order to be popular. HOW DARE I?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

oh no, i suppose i have to repeat myself. telling your children that pondering their existence is a laughable offense is not a good thing for them. if religious families humiliate their children for wondering if God exists, then they are just as wrong as athiest families humiliating their children for wondering why they exist and where they come from. and laughing at people who do ponder their origins before your child has such ponderings is much worse than laughing at them after the fact.

just because most intelligent people think athiests are blind to all non-physical evidence of God, doesn't mean those people should tell their children that athiests are silly idiots who have no sense. and while some religious families i'm sure do this, it is not even close to the norm. and just because there are some intelligent people that think thiests are clinging on to something they hope to be true but have no good reason to think actually is true, doesn't mean those people should call theists silly idiots that have no sense, even if they really believe thiests are silly idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you think 'most intelligent people think atheists are blind...' and that only 'some intelligent people think theists are clinging on to something the hope to be true.'

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
well, if something happens in every culture from the dawn of man, it is hard to dismiss it as cultural.

[/ QUOTE ]

It hasn't, that was my point.
Look around in current and past cultures and you'll find that it's not universal ( you gotta get out more). When it is observed, it's in cultural groups, not randomly scattered through the population. Even some primitive tribes have no god-type beliefs.
Things that are natural are innate traits we have, like emotions, a knack for learning language, etc.

luckyme

[kutuz_off]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, if something happens in every culture from the dawn of man, it is hard to dismiss it as cultural.

[/ QUOTE ]
It hasn't, that was my point.
Look around in current and past cultures and you'll find that it's not universal ( you gotta get out more).
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I come from one culture where overwhelming majority was raised atheist for at least 3 latest (in my time) generations. In Soviet Russia, atheists raise YOU! We never ever even talked or thought about religion and god as kids. When we came across the references in books, it was viewed with some sort of amusement, as something that strange people in strange countries do for strange unknowable reasons. In middle school, religion was descibed as the "opiate for the masses", another form of control of the masses.

Now, you might argue that all Russians are immoral valueless people, but that wouldn't be true, would it? There's the same ratio of a-holes and persons with no regard for others and for society in general as anywhere else.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, if something happens in every culture from the dawn of man, it is hard to dismiss it as cultural.

[/ QUOTE ]
It hasn't, that was my point.
Look around in current and past cultures and you'll find that it's not universal ( you gotta get out more).
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I come from one culture where overwhelming majority was raised atheist for at least 3 latest (in my time) generations. In Soviet Russia, atheists raise YOU! We never ever even talked or thought about religion and god as kids. When we came across the references in books, it was viewed with some sort of amusement, as something that strange people in strange countries do for strange unknowable reasons. In middle school, religion was descibed as the "opiate for the masses", another form of control of the masses.

Now, you might argue that all Russians are immoral valueless people, but that wouldn't be true, would it? There's the same ratio of a-holes and persons with no regard for others and for society in general as anywhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

But aren't you guys all spies or chessmasters? Hardly what we in America want from our children, so I guess we must raise them Catholic for their own good.

And since you are a new(?) poster on this board, let me protect myself. This was sarcasm.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We never ever even talked or thought about religion and god as kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was trying to get the point across that your experience is the Natural one and any god-talk or beliefs is an outgrowth of some specific culture. Common through history ( but with an amazing variety of what 'god' was) but far from 'natural' or 'universal'.

luckyme

[keith123]

huh? no one raised in the soviet union wondered where they came from and whether there was any sort of presence in the world beyond the physical?!? no wonder you lost the cold war. but seriously, that is the very thing that i was alluding to before. when children are taught that their thoughts on matters greater than themselves are bad and when discussion about such thoughts are stifled and mocked, of course it will rid itself from the culture to a significant extent, but the philosophical and spiritual ponderings still happen, they are just suppressed.

and i am not saying athiests are immoral. i was making a specific point that when natural wonder about existence, consciousness, spirituality, are mocked and those who do wonder about such things are humiliated, that is not a good thing. some of you obviously disagree and think philosphical thought is a laughable waste of time, or at least you claim it to be (while actually many athiests have come to their position from thinking about precisely what they will humiliate their children for thinking about).

And I understand how you might think it is funny that most intelligent people find athiests blind to certain things, but it is the case. The vast majority of very intelligent people believe in some form of a higher power. They might very well be wrong, but it is the case. And obviously since the majority intelligent people are not athiests, i used the word "some" to describe that group, and "most" to describe the majority group.

i think if a lot of the more intelligent athiests of our culture were raised in the soviet union, they would be the ones suggesting that there might be a higher power in the world and that their soviet culture is foolish to suppress thoughts about God and the spiritual world. this wouldn't apply to all of you, but i think it would apply to a lot more of you than you'd like to think (or admit). and that isn't a bad thing at all. but many of you take it too far in my opinion, practically to the point of stifling philosophical thought.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
i think if a lot of the more intelligent athiests of our culture were raised in the soviet union, they would be the ones suggesting that there might be a higher power in the world and that their soviet culture is foolish to suppress thoughts about God and the spiritual world. this wouldn't apply to all of you, but i think it would apply to a lot more of you than you'd like to think (or admit). and that isn't a bad thing at all. but many of you take it too far in my opinion, practically to the point of stifling philosophical thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a lot of truth to this. I have a theory that part of why I'm an atheist is because I was exposed to so much of religion that was clear utter hogwash. Whereas most of the atheism I was exposed to was rather lucid. In the reverse case, well, I definitely wouldn't have been a traditional Christian, but I might very well have been a theist.

But for me that only supports my atheism. It's an indication that what we believe has less to do with divine revelation than with our past experiences.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
huh? no one raised in the soviet union wondered where they came from and whether there was any sort of presence in the world beyond the physical?!? no wonder you lost the cold war. but seriously, that is the very thing that i was alluding to before. when children are taught that their thoughts on matters greater than themselves are bad and when discussion about such thoughts are stifled and mocked, of course it will rid itself from the culture to a significant extent, but the philosophical and spiritual ponderings still happen, they are just suppressed.

and i am not saying athiests are immoral. i was making a specific point that when natural wonder about existence, consciousness, spirituality, are mocked and those who do wonder about such things are humiliated, that is not a good thing. some of you obviously disagree and think philosphical thought is a laughable waste of time, or at least you claim it to be (while actually many athiests have come to their position from thinking about precisely what they will humiliate their children for thinking about).

And I understand how you might think it is funny that most intelligent people find athiests blind to certain things, but it is the case. The vast majority of very intelligent people believe in some form of a higher power. They might very well be wrong, but it is the case. And obviously since the majority intelligent people are not athiests, i used the word "some" to describe that group, and "most" to describe the majority group.

i think if a lot of the more intelligent athiests of our culture were raised in the soviet union, they would be the ones suggesting that there might be a higher power in the world and that their soviet culture is foolish to suppress thoughts about God and the spiritual world. this wouldn't apply to all of you, but i think it would apply to a lot more of you than you'd like to think (or admit). and that isn't a bad thing at all. but many of you take it too far in my opinion, practically to the point of stifling philosophical thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've really argued yourself into a tautology now. If the kids don't miss God its because there culture/parents are stifling them, which proves your point. If they DO wonder it just goes to show how God is universal to human nature.

And btw, asking epistemological questions /= God, and even spirituality is too loosely defined to be useful here. I hope you agree that God doesn't answer these questions any better than "I have no idea" does, right?

[Unoriginalname]

I was like you, raised a christian, eventually broke off and became an athiest.

One of my best friends I've had all my life, however, has athiest parents and was raised without any kind of religion from the start. He's one of the most moral, happy, loyal, emotionally well-adjusted people I know. OBVIOUSLY sample size is laughably too small, but just saying you can raise your kids athiest and it's still quite possible for them to turn out fine.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
most intelligent people are definitely NOT athiests.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...yeah, don't bother to look at any of the 50 or so studies on this...just say it real fast and maybe we'll believe you.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
You've really argued yourself into a tautology now. If the kids don't miss God its because there culture/parents are stifling them, which proves your point. If they DO wonder it just goes to show how God is universal to human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that people in all cultures DO wonder about this existence, and wonder about whether there is some type of higher power that shaped our world. I am not making a broader point about what that proves or "goes to show." Also, I never claimed that athiests "miss" God, though I suppose they might in a way. I just said that when a particular parent (originally) or even a pariticular culture (after the soviet post) PURPOSELY discourages/mocks/stifles philosophical thought, there will be less of it, and that isn't a good thing in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
And btw, asking epistemological questions /= God, and even spirituality is too loosely defined to be useful here. I hope you agree that God doesn't answer these questions any better than "I have no idea" does, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am not talking about the answers to the questions, and whether or not athiests are correct. Again, I am saying that parents or cultures that make their children/people feel stupid for pondering these questions, are not doing a great service to them.

[NMcNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
To be totally liberated from religion, you need to truly realize that Atheists are NOT "missing out" on anything essential that religious people have.

[/ QUOTE ]

blissful ignorance

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've really argued yourself into a tautology now. If the kids don't miss God its because there culture/parents are stifling them, which proves your point. If they DO wonder it just goes to show how God is universal to human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that people in all cultures DO wonder about this existence, and wonder about whether there is some type of higher power that shaped our world. I am not making a broader point about what that proves or "goes to show." Also, I never claimed that athiests "miss" God, though I suppose they might in a way. I just said that when a particular parent (originally) or even a pariticular culture (after the soviet post) PURPOSELY discourages/mocks/stifles philosophical thought, there will be less of it, and that isn't a good thing in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
And btw, asking epistemological questions /= God, and even spirituality is too loosely defined to be useful here. I hope you agree that God doesn't answer these questions any better than "I have no idea" does, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am not talking about the answers to the questions, and whether or not athiests are correct. Again, I am saying that parents or cultures that make their children/people feel stupid for pondering these questions, are not doing a great service to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine that those societies really exist though, and American atheist families certainly aren't an example. Was your post supposed to be a warning to us atheists not to do something we never would have done anyway, or was it some sort of admonition or commentary on what you actually think atheist families are like?

"Shut up about it, its just God" is identical to "Shut up about it, its nothing" as far as your hypothetical children are concerned, no?

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine that those societies really exist though, and American atheist families certainly aren't an example. Was your post supposed to be a warning to us atheists not to do something we never would have done anyway, or was it some sort of admonition or commentary on what you actually think atheist families are like?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it did exist to a certain degree in the soviet union. And I think it exists in Dana's family. I don't think it is the case in the majority of athiest homes in America though.

[ QUOTE ]
"Shut up about it, its just God" is identical to "Shut up about it, its nothing" as far as your hypothetical children are concerned, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, basically. i think some athiests on this board and elsewhere are hypocritical. they dislike that some religious parents discourage their children from thinking too hard about whether or not God exists, but they don't mind discouraging thier own children from doing the same.

[vhawk01]

Hmm...you should always be leery when the strength of your position boils down to "some people in X do some Y some of the time." You are probably right, some atheists do this, some atheists are hypocrites. Probably all atheists are hypocrites, just as all people in general are. Its only an interesting point if you think they do it to excess, or in some way unique to being an atheist. Do you think a higher percentage of atheists do this than theists? I think thats an extremely hard sell, given all of our experiences with religious families. Do you assert that atheists doing this is particularly hypocritical, moreso than their theist counterparts? You might have a point there, in that the theists don't make a point of being open-minded and un-brainwashed.

But if your point was "Hey atheists ain't perfect either" I think you could have saved yourself some time.

[keith123]

lol. my point was really dana-specific. i threw the "some" in there because i don't think he is too alone in his viewpoint.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
lol. my point was really dana-specific. i threw the "some" in there because i don't think he is too alone in his viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, new thread topic:

Is dana a tool? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

We can make it a poll.

EDIT: But you gotta admit, you did this in a very misleading way. The vast majority of your posts talked about atheists, not dana, and if all you meant was dana, then who cares if he/she is an atheist? you might as well have said 'dana, the white middle-class guy, raises his kids in a stifling way.' I have no idea if he is white, middle-class, or a guy, but for the point you were making these are just as (un)important as his atheism.

[keith123]

i mentioned it a few times. i think it is as relevant as one fundamentalist on this board sparking a debate about fundamentalist Christianity. no need for non-fundamentalists to defend themselves.