[electriic_ink]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
I don't know any Sunday School teachers

Nvm then. If you ever meet any, please do. You'd be doing the children in those classes a massive favour. I think a lot of them never get told that what they're being taught is just opinion and it causes confusion.

[py0alb]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
I have a functioning brain...

...which is why its so obvious to you that Christianity is based on a series of myths and should therefore be presented as such.

Its very clever that you're able to persuade yourself that you believe in it wholesale whilst simultaneously possessing the mental acuity to recognise it as a load of old nonsense. Winston Smith would be jealous of the levels of doublethink required of the modern day religious.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by py0alb)
...which is why its so obvious to you that Christianity is based on a series of myths and should therefore be presented as such.

Its very clever that you're able to persuade yourself that you believe in it wholesale whilst simultaneously possessing the mental acuity to recognise it as a load of old nonsense. Winston Smith would be jealous of the levels of doublethink required of the modern day religious.

Oh I never claimed to believe in it wholesale. Hence the self-term "liberal" Catholic

I don't recall saying that I believe that Christianity is based on a series of myths either We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point

[py0alb]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
Nvm then. If you ever meet any, please do. You'd be doing the children in those classes a massive favour. I think a lot of them never get told that what they're being taught is just opinion and it causes confusion.

"opinion" is a bit generous. opinions are normally based on some kind of evidence and deduction. The bible is not a set of opinions, its a story book just like Lord of the Rings.

[SaharaDesert]

(Original post by Multitalented me)
I believe that both bringing them up in a certain religion or atheism is wrong without sufficient proof.It can lead to mental torture when children are older which often goes understated while for some reason some people think it's just easy to convert Imagine the guilt & fear in the minds of these children. I think every person needs to learn about every religion in depth to even come close to knowing an answer in terms of religion otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent with things such as blind faith.

So they should be brought up as agnostics?
That is still imposing a belief and a label on them.
A child cannot make the decision of what belief is right at such a young age without being influenced externally, by copying something/someone else. So if you don't "indoctrinate" your child, someone else sure will for you. And if you think that they won't be because you would have already taught them all there is to know about all existing and non existing religions, as well as Atheism, by the time they hit puberty, then I'm telling you you are being impractical and plaguing the child with vasts amount of information and complex ideas, robbing their childhood and imposing your ideology and agnosticism on to them, which imo, is altogether pretty much as burdening, or perhaps even worse, than had they been brought up in a religion.

Its better if the parent raises them with the same religion/belief that they have, and engage them with the religion critically and intellectually, rather than telling them "do this, do that", and then not giving them an explanation, which I think is what you are trying to say is bad? In that case, they can be raised in and taught their own religion by default, and then when they're older, they can compare what they learnt about their own beliefs whilst young with the beliefs they have learnt from other sources (e.g. school, internet, friends), and make the decision as to whether they want to stick to their current belief or change.

Yes, it would be difficult to change your mindset and way of thinking, converting to a religion or leaving a religion is definitely hard, but that is just one of lifes experiences and it will help them to mature and not be afraid to take risks. We can't just shy away and try to avoid that potential situation just because we don't want our children to go through that hard decision (or "mental torture", as you put it).

It's improtant to understand the definition of indoctrination which is the process of inculcating ideas without question. This to me certainly constitutes abuse.

In that case, children are all indoctrinated in some form or another whilst growing up.
The parent intills their own personal set of morals in the child. Children in the west, for example, are probably brought up believing solely in monogamy and viewing it as the ultimate relationship paradigm. So, what would you like parents to say to their 7 year old child? "Monogamy is one form of relationship, but there is also polgyamy, and polyandry, and of course, to not be discriminative, there's beastiality, and incest too, and threesomes etc. although these are usually frowned upon, I don't want to impose my views on you, so if you want to practise any of the aforementioned, then go ahead son". Also, how far would you like to extrapolate this idea of ambigous morality? Don't we also tell our children that murder, theft, adultery, lying etc. is wrong? That kind of sounds like indoctrination to me.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by py0alb)
"opinion" is a bit generous. opinions are normally based on some kind of evidence and deduction. The bible is not a set of opinions, its a story book just like Lord of the Rings.

But it is the opinion of Sunday School teachers and other Christians alike that a select group of biblical stories bear some truth. They may have no proper evidence to substantiate that opinion but that doesn't make it not an opinion.

[py0alb]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
They may have no proper evidence to substantiate that opinion but that doesn't make it not an opinion.

Hmmm.. that is not my definition of the word opinion.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by py0alb)
Hmmm.. that is not my definition of the word opinion.

The one I'd use is:

"A belief that a person has formed about a topic or issue. "
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opinion#English

[py0alb]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
The one I'd use is:

"A belief that a person has formed about a topic or issue. "
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/opinion#English

A belief is something different entirely. To believe something is to suggest a far greater deal of certainty of its veracity than to merely have an opinion that that is the case.

I would define an opinion as an assessment as to the probability of the degree of veracity of a given statement. in this context, opinions are normally seen as being evidence based, rationally formulated and free from conscious bias.

Other useful epistemological relationships:

belief + evidence = knowledge.
belief - evidence = faith.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Teaching children about religion is fundamentally sick. It is full of disturbing images of hell which have psychologically damaged many a person. Victims of Catholic molestation who have deconverted have been known to proclaim that the psychological torture, involving fear and guilt, was worse than the "yuckiness" of the molestation. Children can be brought up according to religious principles, but cannot be considered part of a religion until they are of the age to make that decision, just like a child of conservative parents cannot be called a conservative child.

Ah yes, a highly objective and rational source for condemnation.

(Original post by py0alb)
There's no such thing as athiest indoctrination, its a contradiction in terms.

"Hey kids, learn to think for yourselves and question the validity of the source when confronted with extraordinary claims. Don't ask daddy why, just do it, ok?"

Really? You honestly think that? You don't think that anti-religion couples might raise their children in an anti-religion light? You don't think that parents who dislike religion might not colour their children's perspectives through the way they discuss the topic? Oh please.

(Original post by aljolson)
You want proof, how about the Ten Commandments? You have supported biblical belief before, surely that should convince you.

They tell us that God, if such a being exists, feels we shouldn't do those acts. That doesn't mean they are wrong, nor is The Bible a good source.

(Original post by aljolson)
Indoctrination, as in, what the Nazi's did with the Hitler Youth.
Indoctrination, as in what Catholicism does with confirmation of very young children.

Indoctrination as your parents did with your morals, your values, etc.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Hylean)
Really? You honestly think that? You don't think that anti-religion couples might raise their children in an anti-religion light? You don't think that parents who dislike religion might not colour their children's perspectives through the way they discuss the topic? Oh please.
.

atheist no more implies anti-religion as non-jewish implies anti-semite.

I maintain that the fundamental distinction of an atheist is that of rational skepticism, in this case attached to religious claims, but most atheists extend this default position to all fields of discourse.

Skepticism is the notion that claims of self appointed authority figures should not simply be accepted as truth but the validity of claims should constantly be questioned and explanations demanded.

As such, the idea of atheist indoctrination is by definition nonsensical. How can you indoctrinate someone to think for themselves? Thats a contradiction in terms.

[Hylean]

(Original post by py0alb)
atheist no more implies anti-religion as non-jewish implies anti-semite.

I maintain that the fundamental distinction of an atheist is that of rational skepticism, in this case attached to religious claims, but most atheists extend this default position to all fields of discourse.

Skepticism is the notion that claims of self appointed authority figures should not simply be accepted as truth but the validity of claims should constantly be questioned and explanations demanded.

As such, the idea of atheist indoctrination is by definition nonsensical. How can you indoctrinate someone to think for themselves? Thats a contradiction in terms.

Because skepticism and "thinking for yourself" are not what makes a person an atheist and to suggest so is ridiculous. And it is just as easy to indoctrinate an atheist viewpoint as it is a religious one.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Hylean)
Because skepticism and "thinking for yourself" are not what makes a person an atheist and to suggest so is ridiculous.

Of course it is. A rational, skeptical person formulates opinions based an a cool headed assessment of the evidence in front of him and by that method alone. If the person then extends that methodology into the field of religion then what you get is an atheist. Try and deny either of those sentences, I dare you.

And it is just as easy to indoctrinate an atheist viewpoint as it is a religious one.

I've already explained why this statement is incorrect. If you wish to argue the point, you're actually going to have to come up with some kind of counterargument.

[Elipsis]

Despite what a lot of atheists are saying in this thread; Teaching your children your ethics and beliefs is not child abuse, it's called parenting. It is no more abuse than you teaching them there is no God. We are all born with our own minds, and i'm sure they can work out if they don't believe later on in life - as many millions of people have.

[Hylean]

(Original post by py0alb)
Of course it is. A rational, skeptical person formulates opinions based an a cool headed assessment of the evidence in front of him and by that method alone. If the person then extends that methodology into the field of religion then what you get is an atheist. Try and deny either of those sentences, I dare you.

If that were true, then there would be a great deal more atheists than there are, because there are many people who apply those qualities to religion and are religious. That your own bias makes you want to believe differently doesn't make it true.

Moreover, a recent poll on here showed that atheist children often stayed atheist. Is that because of upbringing or something else?

(Original post by py0alb)
I've already explained why this statement is incorrect. If you wish to argue the point, you're actually going to have to come up with some kind of counterargument.

First you have to prove that scepticism and thinking for yourself are the key qualities of atheism which by anyone else is defined as denying the existence of or the disbelief in gods. Your main argument has no evidence and until such a point as you provide evidence, I can disregard it out of hand, much like you do religion.

The very fact you find it unpalatable to admit that atheist parents can "indoctrinate" their children shows you realise this argument about a religious upbringining, especially in the West, is rather weak and lacks understanding of child psychology and identify formation.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by py0alb)
Of course it is. A rational, skeptical person formulates opinions based an a cool headed assessment of the evidence in front of him and by that method alone. If the person then extends that methodology into the field of religion then what you get is an atheist. Try and deny either of those sentences, I dare you.




I've already explained why this statement is incorrect. If you wish to argue the point, you're actually going to have to come up with some kind of counterargument.

Haha, the arrogance of the idea that 2 people could like at identical evidence and come to two completely different conclusions is totally lost on you isn't it? You carry on. You clearly need to believe that being an atheist makes you superior, because you have a general lack of any real achievement. The fact that there are far far smarter people than you, who possess greater objectivity, who are religious, totally dispells your ridiculous argument.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Hylean)
Ah yes, a highly objective and rational source for condemnation.

More rational than someone who has proven they are irrational, by remaining inside the catholic church.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Hylean)
If that were true, then there would be a great deal more atheists than there are, because there are many people who apply those qualities to religion and are religious. That your own bias makes you want to believe differently doesn't make it true.

Some people are too misinformed to correctly apply the method, some people are too intellectually cowardly to accept the results. I can't really be held responsible for that. There are however, a great deal more atheists than you probably give credit for. Something of the order of 80% of the UK are technically atheist.

I don't want to believe anything particularly, As an intrinsic pragmatist, I've never really been interested in wishful thinking. I simply relay the evidence I see to TSR.

Moreover, a recent poll on here showed that atheist children often stayed atheist. Is that because of upbringing or something else?

Shock horror: children who are not indoctrinated at a young age are more likely to be rational adults.

First you have to prove that scepticism and thinking for yourself are the key qualities of atheism which by anyone else is defined as denying the existence of or the disbelief in gods. Your main argument has no evidence and until such a point as you provide evidence, I can disregard it out of hand, much like you do religion.

The very fact you find it unpalatable to admit that atheist parents can "indoctrinate" their children shows you realise this argument about a religious upbringining, especially in the West, is rather weak and lacks understanding of child psychology and identify formation.

Are you cherrypicking your own definition of atheism again? Seriously, whats the point? NO-ONE agrees with your definition. Again, I don't find anything unpalatable, I simply find your argument to be poorly formulated logically invalid.

You will find my argument above. Until you demonstrate how it is self consistent to indoctrinate someone into refusing to be indoctrinated, then I'm going to have to assume that this debate is simply going over your head.

Here's a clue: what are the relationships between religious belief and faith, and between faith and skepticism?

[py0alb]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Haha, the arrogance of the idea that 2 people could like at identical evidence and come to two completely different conclusions is totally lost on you isn't it? You carry on. You clearly need to believe that being an atheist makes you superior, because you have a general lack of any real achievement. The fact that there are far far smarter people than you, who possess greater objectivity, who are religious, totally dispells your ridiculous argument.

I don't understand your first sentence.

The rest appeared to be ad hominems.

All in all, a very disappointing contribution.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
More rational than someone who has proven they are irrational, by remaining inside the catholic church.

Really? So people who might have an agenda against an institution which led to their abuse are more rational...

Now I'm beginning to doubt your objectivity.

(Original post by py0alb)
Some people are too misinformed to correctly apply the method, some people are too intellectually cowardly to accept the results. I can't really be held responsible for that. There are however, a great deal more atheists than you probably give credit for. Something of the order of 80% of the UK are technically atheist.

Proof for any of these baseless assertions?

(Original post by py0alb)
I don't want to believe anything particularly, As an intrinsic pragmatist, I've never really been interested in wishful thinking. I simply relay the evidence I see to TSR.

I don't know, you're not really showing this side right now, to be honest. It's clearly wishful thinking that there is no such thing as an "atheist agenda" to be indoctrinated into.

(Original post by py0alb)
Shock horror: children who are not indoctrinated at a young age are more likely to be rational adults.

Or, shock horror, they were "indoctrinated" at a young age and carried on like most people.

(Original post by py0alb)
Are you cherrypicking your own definition of atheism again? Seriously, whats the point? NO-ONE agrees with your definition. Again, I don't find anything unpalatable, I simply find your argument to be poorly formulated logically invalid.

Really? I took both definitions from the Definitional Thread, so clearly there's a general concensus on the definition I gave. Interestingly, your definition of atheism exists nowhere except in your head.

Clearly you find it unpalatable, because you can't admit a simple truth.

(Original post by py0alb)
You will find my argument above. Until you demonstrate how it is self consistent to indoctrinate someone into refusing to be indoctrinated, then I'm going to have to assume that this debate is simply going over your head.

Except, that's not what atheism is about. Atheism is about a belief that there is no deity or a disbelief in any deity. That's a fact. Thus, it can be very easy to indoctrinate someone into that idea. It's also easy to indoctrinate people into an anti-religion viewpoint as well, which often goes hand-in-hand with atheism (Hitchens would be a good example).

Your argument is that atheism somehow defines itself by scepticism (hint, it doesn't) and thinking for yourself (hint, it doesn't). You have yet to prove this assertion, so I can disregard it like you do any god out there.

(Original post by py0alb)
Here's a clue: what are the relationships between religious belief and faith, and between faith and skepticism?

This entire post makes no sense. And does little to prove, at all, your idea that atheists can't indoctrinate their children the same way religious parents "can".

Until you can provide a decent argument to show that religious upbringing in the West is actually indoctrination on a level different to teaching social and cultural values, etc. and that somehow atheists are above these processes (hint, they're not), it's just not worth it debating with you. You're clearly biased and not approaching the debate objectively.