Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Yeah, generalisations are cool. Much easier to deal with too.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Just wish we could all get along and actually stop arguing/debating about our differences.It is what is dividing our society as a whole..

Just because I don't believe in a deity doesn't mean I should have the right to shove my views down the throat of someone who does believe in a deity..and the majority of those don't actually go around indoctrinating anyone.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

In the case of the first paragraph your friend had pre-existing psychiatric issues and evidently was using things as crutches. No-one of sound mind contemplates suicide because they start doubting their 'faith', and no-one of a solid faith doubts it because of what Dawkins writes. There has to be pre-existing doubt there.

Regarding the second paragraph Dawkins repeatedly and emphatically states that some people use religion as a comfort and he doesn't frown upon that, but states that it doesn't make the beliefs themselves any more likely to be reality rather than 'beliefs'.

Take it as personally as you want to, his words are not a personal attack on you but on concepts. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, but being admonished to look at things in order to understand them isn't a personal attack on anyone.

Were it hard drugs or alcohol that got you through these potentially devastating situations you'd potentially be taking criticism of them personally too. Doesn't make the criticism any more personal and before you get offended I'm not equating faith with either of those but using them very loosely as I'm half-drunk and my brain won't come up with anything better as a comparison.

This is why humanism / atheism isn't so popular in many cases. We can't offer the idea of meeting family or friends in a utopian afterlife, we can't offer a happy ending to anyone, all we can offer is what the evidence points to. In many ways I find this far more comforting, profound and awe-inspiring but at the most base of human levels it's most definitely no match for immortality and again at that most base level won't ease the mourning process.

I am sorry about your Dad by the way. Please take comfort in that whatever belief system anyone may hold he lives on through you and any other children he may have, along with his works, and the memories his life made in others.

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 23:54 ----------

Debating our differences is what makes society progress towards a greater understanding between said differences. You can't understand, accept and 'get along' with something without discussing / arguing / debating it.

It may not be the most harmonious solution in the short term but it's perfectly healthy.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

My sister was the same when she found out the tooth fairy didn't exist.
she was really miserable for a while.

but for all those that are miserable. there's got to be many more that are happier?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Carl, with respect you know nothing about him or his circumstances. If he had pre-existing conditions then you know him better than he knows himself. There was nothing along those lines in his medical history.

It would be better for you to simply accept the devastating effect he had coming away from Dawkins' words left him doubting every facet of what he'd previously 'known' to be true. His life was simply turned upside down completely after read that crap.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

But if he doubted that much. then he must have believed enough to deny the belief he originally had?

one was stronger than the other.

what I mean is you have the 'Bible Book' and then you have the 'Dawkins Book'

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

But Russ, you are expecting all and sundry to take your word for something.

You yourself have recently castigated a poster for singularly failing to provide factual proof of assertions which he made. Can you prove what you say in relation to the individual in question to be true?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

If you can suggest a way for me to do so then by all means. The example you're referring to is where someone is calling their perception a fact and the proof requested could be provided with verifiable links.

I can't quite see where I've given my perception - and short of asking him to come on CF to verify what I've said I'm not sure what evidence you'd like (although going on the above I get the impression if he did people would still want more proof..).

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 ----------

Dawkins' purpose of that book was to get people to lose their belief. He put a lot of effort in to that and being the intelligent man he is, he succeeded in imposing it on a lot of people.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

You really don't get analogies, do you?

Ask him to do that and, assuming he does and is prepared to provide certifiable facts to verify what you have said then I, personally, would expect that I wouldn't require much if anything more than that . That said, others on CF might have higher thresholds when it comes to proof than I.

On the matter of the Dawkins book it is worth pointing out that he is an individual. Extremely poweful churches and religions have engaged dozens, if not hundreds, of people to write and tweak a certain book to influence people. So it's not as if Dawkins was the first to do so, is it?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Are you able to show evidence where I've suggested that he was?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

so Dawkins has more power than God

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I think if he did then he'd have converted a lot more.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

i think your right the power of Dawkins books in nothing compared to the power of faith .
and on that note don't you think its time you stopped blaming him and looked to the real reason your friend went off the path .

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Bless.

It was a thing called a rhetorical question, Russ.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Bless ya right back Mr A it was a thing called irony.

I'll play along, if you genuinely were interested in proof of what I said - I'm pretty sure we both know you weren't - then there's a fairly well-known (amongst staunch atheists) website where "post-Christianity" people post similar experiences of their own.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

It's hard for me look past any other potential reasons when he's stated numerous times what made him lose his beliefs. I have very little time for Dawkins, I won't leave a good word on him - I'll concede he's a very intelligent and influential man, nothing more - but my mate has little short of almost mortal hate for him.

Some might say while he had his beliefs he was living in a deluded world etc however he was happy, he wasn't hurting anyone and felt his like had hope and purpose.

With that taken away (especially given it was a number of rabid atheists who challenged him to give it a read) he became a broken man. On the few times I've seen the guy since, he's a shell of who he used to be.


*standard Mr A disclaimer - I have no verifiable evidence of the above

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I think you may misunderstand what irony actually is, Russ.

I'll be the judge of when I'm being interested, thanks. Get your friend on here and then we'll chat.

No interest, thanks.

There are other things you've no verifiable evidence of, aren't there?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

we aren't all falling out- just blowing off steam ,a heated debate = an exiting debate .
no atheists or theists are harmed :)

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

OK

Fair enough, how about we both happily agree not to make unverified assumptions about each other from now on, deal?

I'll ask but given the malignity aimed by some at those who take issue with anti-religionist atheism I won't be surprised if he doesn't join or does so but refrains from posting.


Genuinely surprised but ok.


Well yes but I'm sure a man of your intellect understands the differences between beliefs and facts.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I also understand when something is established as "fact" that verifiable evidence has been provided to establish it as such. You seem to be confusing beliefs with faith.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Exactly, with reference to the other thread you were alluding to. So do you consider it acceptable to add a disclaimer such as mine above? I know this is all drifting away from the main topic but I do like to establish the rules where possible.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Do what you want Russ. If you feel the need to insert a disclaimer then knock yourself out but in the interest of fairness (and in keeping with your interest in rules) you cannot expect to demand facts, proof and verification of statements from others and not be held to the same level of scrutiny yourself. "Do unto others" and all that jazz. Is that fair enough?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

It is but I'm sure you'll agree there's a difference in expectation of availability between facts that given the gravitas of what they represent ought to be easily found via Google, and those requiring someone to sign up to a forum and join in a discussion, especially as I'm not even sure what he could provide as evidence short of a scanned copy of his psychiatric report.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

A scanned copy of his psychiatric report will do fine.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Ah but sadly debate/discussion all too often descend into downright argument..and this thread is no different from the large number we have already seen..

What would really novel is if we all just agreed to disagree and left it there and if Dawkins would cease using the issue to create publicity to sell his work.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

sorry, this might be a long post, but those who are interested in this thread will of course read the below and the thread in it's entirety before commenting on what I have said!

I agree that we should all let everyone believe what they like so long as no one is being hurt or hindered. And I also think that openly discussing different views is vitally important. yes, we can agree to disagree, but if taken too far, people with differing views would end up never speaking and we would end up with a self-created utopia where we can block out anyone with a different view and back-slap everyone with the same view, which I think would be far more dangerous to society. that's exactly how things like racism and stereotypes come about. No one should throw any view down someone else's throat. that said, an internet forum, everyone has the choice to walk away. the same as everyone has the choice to read the bible or read Dawkins' book.

the best person to make any diagnosis on this would be a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, not an internet forum - this applies to both sides of the argument. as for self-diagnosis when it comes to psychosis, unresolved emotional issues, mental issues, personality disorders or however you want to term it, well no. you can't do that. like i said earlier, even the insane believe themselves to be sane.

I have no doubt that religion helped your friend through tough times, much like it has yourself. but that does not mean there are not other ways of getting through things. saying that Dawkins' book was the soul reason for your friend to attempt to take his life just isn't fair. If I may quote from Game Of Thrones, which as with many great books / films / programmes, uses the real world and creates a parallel from it:

some will find that their belief was a 'lie' to them. some will retain their belief as very real. others will never accept the stories and some will sway between what they see and what they want to see. In no way should that take away the immense value that religion brings to so many people around the world. however, if one suddenly feels that what they have been taught holds no truth, or at the very least, does not hold the truth they believed it to bring, then that is down to only one person - themselves. because they them self have chosen to abandon 'the lie' (as it is described in the quote). for you, Russ, Dawkins is the lie. And I doubt very much you will ever spend them time reading his works with an open mind to what it says, rather then what you think it is telling you. I don't know if that is because you fear the book and it's contents? maybe you have the tiniest flicker you fear may be ignitied should you begin to entertain the idea of questioning faith. maybe you are absolute in your unshakeable faith. neither scenario is wrong.

of course, you are free to believe in what you like. and no one should tell you otherwise. there are some who will tell you to lose faith, much the same as there are some of faith who come knocking on my door to tell me I should believe. but those who do that are not necessarily your faith. and you have to accept that not all atheists are trying to make you lose your faith and become godless. and I believe (rightly or wrongly) that Dawkins is merely presenting the other side of the faith argument. if you want to read it, then do. if not, then don't. whatever your thoughts though, it is unfair that you generalise all atheists with the same brush....

....we do not all want you to abandon god. we just don't want your faith in god to have you abandon what everything else the world and it's people have to offer. ideologies, no matter what the subject, can cause serious flaws in judgement and focus. need we even mention world war 2? we want you to question your faith, the same as those who are religious would love godless people to question not having a god.

taking away any personal or bias view point, I have never myself heard Dawkins say that. I think he just wants people to question their faith, fully. then they can make up their mind about it. his beef is more with the indoctrination that often comes with religion.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Why?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

For the same reason you should question anything. As I've said many, many times on this forum, the moment we stop questioning and blindly follow is the moment we stop progressing - it's the moment we hold ourselves back. And so we would never become more because we cannot better ourselves or anything / anyone else. And it doesn't matter if it's an ideology, a theory or whatever. We should always question to find our own conclusion, not unquestionably follow one we are fed.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Someone's beliefs aren't as conventional as say, why do you support a certain football team, why is a certain country your favourite destination etc.

It's a deeply personal thing for each person. You may get some who are happy to open up about it, that's up to them but unsolicited questioning of someone's religious beliefs is about as personal as you can get, especially if they don't affect anyone else, least of all the person doing the asking.

I expect people to ask "What/why does the bible say such and such about this" (providing it's a legitimate interest and not an excuse to to bring views out in the open to criticise and attack them), it comes with the territory. But expecting/demanding someone to have their view questioned? Don't be in too much of a hurry for a response. I'm not telling anyone how to live. I know what works for me and I'm happy with that.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

so long as that also includes people who don't have any other choice, like your children.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Simply outstanding.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Or else what?

This doesn't become any less absurd, no matter how many times you repeat it. Telling children how to live is an essential part of a parent's role in their life. Telling children that there is a God and bringing them up in a life of faith is a normal, healthy expression of family. The only people who think this should not happen are - surprise, surprise - people who are atheist or agnostic in outlook, and what they always end up arguing for is - surprise, surprise - for other families to change their ways to be more like them.

No matter how you dress it up and how hard you try to sound reasonable, your argument is utterly self-serving and at the same time quite lacking in self awareness. How you bring up your kids is your business. How a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist brings up his kids is his business. It is not the State's and it is not his neighbour's.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Chris, there is a gulf of difference between telling and guiding. Telling implies a forceful tact which requires, demands even, compliance. Guiding implies showing paths, but allowing one to choose which to take. Someone who tells demands respect and authority. Someone who guides does nothing more than advise and help.

If someone wants to believe in a god, that is fine. But to push that belief in another, no matter what their age, race, creed, whatever should be discouraged. And that goes for either side of the religious stand points. No one here is telling anyone to do anything. However, as is often the case here, a couple of people think that any religious view that differs from their own is a personal attack designed for them to abandon God. This is simply not the case and I find it increasingly sad that this happens. It is not a personal attack. You have a choice. And I think it is important that we ALL understand what makes those choices important to everyone else so we can understand the person and ultimately ourselves, better. I'f one does not understand a person, one tends to regard the as a fool' as Carl Gustav Jung once said. And I do not want to think anyone a fool because I don't understand them. However, it takes co-operation from both parties. It requires honesty, validity and questioning. When those things are denied, where does that leave us?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Good point.
why not let the children wait to discover a faith or whatever?

are they going to be miserable, lost or depressed if you never tell them the story?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

its all about ownership of the children the parents own them and will teach them what ever they want .

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

:clap:

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

Another generalisation..

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Of parents?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

For a person of faith, Idi, the existence of multiple religions is not analogous to the existence of multiple motor manufacturers. I might "guide" my son as to the best choice between a VW and a Vauxhall. I would not "guide" him as to the best path up a mountain if I knew one of those paths to end in a cliff drop.

You do not have a faith; you therefore, I suspect, simply don't understand what it entails. Doubtless you would argue that I can know empirically if a mountain path leads to doom whereas I cannot know that my God exists. Faith, however, is a certainty of the truth of something unseen. To me, it is absolutely real, due to my ongoing practice of my faith and my trust in God to act towards me as promised in the Bible, and I have no hesitation in telling my children this.

You may find that unacceptable, and you may attempt to give your argument a veneer of moral superiority by implying that instructing children in faith suggests a corrupt power relationship in the family, but given that North Korea is the only place on earth where the implications of your argument have come close to reaching their logical conclusion, I don't think you're ever likely to see the State stepping in and ruling against parents for taking their own children to church on a Sunday and requiring them to participate in Sunday school.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

so, are you saying that as someone of faith, with children, you are indeed more bias towards getting them to follow the faith you feel suits you best without considering what they might feel best suits them, or without allowing them to stay neutral until a time comes in their life where they are mature enough to make their own choice? Would you freely accept their choice to not have a faith, or if they did have faith, to then abandon it without question?

You are right, I do not have faith. And again, your are correct that I do not fully comprehend how you experience that. This does not take away though, that I understand what faith is, as a concept. I have twice in this thread alone explained how I see the difference between 'belief' (which encompasses faith), 'truth' and 'fact'. as of yet, not a single person has commented, either in agreement or disagreement, to my understanding of those concepts. I therefore take the presumption that my understanding of them is not only fair, but also accepted by others here. If not, I would expect someone to tell me I am wrong. I absolutely take on board that your faith is very real to you. that is fine. I have no issue with that, provided that faith was found by you, on your terms, without an external force manipulating you into thinking it was what you should think or believe. I refer you back to my previous posts regarding the 6 main principles of influence in this thread to explain what they are and how they could work in religious settings.

what I find dangerous (not unacceptable), is the manipulation of ANY persons into following ANY ideology. I'm not really sure how many more times in this thread alone I need to say that. Or how else I can put it. This concern is NOT limited to religion. The reason I have concern about the manipulation of others to believe something without question is because to blindly accept something as the truth, or the only way, hinders ones ability to question. and to think people then become afraid to question because of a fear of punishment, whatever is may be, means it holds back that person's progression, their learning. If we all just said "well, we have steel to build bridges from, that will do", then we would never question if we could make something better, something stronger, and we would be stuck to the physical limitations of using one thing to continue our existence. A thought process that is stuck with one single focus is much the same. People will just sit back and say "well that's what we have been told is true so there's no point it trying to think outside that 'reality'." and so they never become more.

I'm sorry you feel that I am dressing up my points. I'm not trying to. But at this stage, I'm not too sure how Else I can make my point that I feel ANY manipulation of persons regarding ANY ideology is dangerous and should be discouraged.

Is that really an unfair view?
is that really so upsetting?
is it really a personal attack on those who chose to follow religion?
How is that view self-serving?
How is that view lacking self awareness?
Have I, at any stage, told anyone here that they must question their religion?
Have I, at any stage, told anyone here that they must bring up their children a certain way?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Just their kids. :shrug:

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

:clap: Headshot.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

What's the score now then?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I hope this isn't an example of the utopian back-slapping I talked about earlier. this debate isn't a competition. it shouldn't be about shooting other people's views down. It should be a mature discussion which examines and questions BOTH sides of the fence, including those who may sit on said fence.

so far, Chris is the only person from a religious stand point who has actually asked questions about an atheists view without getting defensive and sarcy. it's why he has a lot of respect from me. he is able to debate and not turn it into an argument.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Idi ... You describe normal family relationships, as they have existed for millennia and continue to exist today, in the UK and throughout the world, and then you characterise those relationships as "manipulation" and "dangerous". Clearly you can't see that while ostensibly arguing from a libertarian viewpoint, to demonise a family in such a way is to invite sanction and intervention - which would be authoritarian in the extreme. We are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this. I can at least take comfort from the fact that nobody in a position of power in this country (or anywhere in the developed world for that matter) has yet attempted to demonise families in the way you do, and, for the foreseeable future, parents will continue to enjoy their self-evident freedom to instruct their children as they see fit.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

You aimed that at Chris and obviously he's able to answer for himself as I'm sure he will and although it's not a competition I consider him to be a far better representative of Christianity than I. Always have done.

Me I am of course biased towards Christianity for my children. Why? From my own experiences (and surely that's the basis any parent uses when deciding how to bring the kids up) it's what would suit them best.

Now when it comes to criticism of religion/faith/beliefs, stereotypes are used extremely regularly. If I told a stranger I bring my children up in Christianity there will be assumptions of wild-eyed Pasters screaming at and threatening them with hellfire and brimstone, that I will lock them in the basement with only bread and water should they ever say something positive about Darwin etc. How do I know? Because I've had those sort of suggestions aimed my way in the past when discussing the subject.

Hell, on Cable Forum I've even been accused twice of child abuse for saying I'll bring them up in Christianity.

Here's the joker in the pack - 2 of my kids will be brought up with Hindhu teachings. Possibly my 8 month old son will too.

For those incapable of not using stereotypes, let me help you narrow things down:

Should any of my kids tell me they are homosexual, they would be loved just as they always have been. A complete non-issue for me, their sexuality is their own matter and as long as laws are obeyed, it's none of my business and I won't waste a nano-second of my time having it on my mind. On that subject as long as they find loving partners who will treat them properly I'm happy.

What if any of them choose a different religion? I'll be disappointed obviously. But faith/beliefs must come from the heart and only they can put it there.

If they come to me and ask what I believe or present me with a question that has a spiritual connection or answer, of course my reply will come with a "Christianity flavour". I'm not going to lie to them just to be 'politically correct'.

The part I play in bringing my kids up will be the way I feel is best for them, not what Dawkins or any of his disciples says is best. If someone wants to suggest it somehow harms them, feel free to call social services.

:rant:

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Take it for whatever you want to see it as - my intention was emphasising how well Chris (as usual) answered and countered your points.

If you'd like one yourself, :clap: headshot.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Well it's hard to prove that every parent indoctrinates their children.I suspect most don't.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

correct, families have existed with gods unquestionably at their roots for thousands of years. and over those years, how many people have had to die in the name of those gods? because one group doesn't believe in the same group and neither is willing to question or change their mindset. I'm not saying that religion is the reason for all those killings, but it has been used as an excuse, which due to Social Proofing (one of the 6 principles of influence), the majority of that group would therefore support the actions of those who conquered in the name of Allah, God, or whatever they used at the time (consider the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans and so on). And the reason no one even considered that those murders were unjust or un-necessary is because to question that would imply the questioning of their deity. and to do that would bring on punishment by an authoritative figure or that group (another principle of influence).

Unfortunately, even today we see people using deities as excuses to murder and terrorise. again, I'm not saying these people are good examples of faith, but they become indoctrinated into their groups in the name of their deity. and because others in those group commit these horrendous acts, they find it acceptable to act in such a manner too.

Of course, this is all just an example of how those 6 principles can be used to manipulate people. and I for one think that to be dangerous. again, you are missing the point that if one finds faith themselves, on their own terms, that is absolutely fine. I know if can bring great comfort and joy to many millions of people. it's when an ideology manipulates someone into following that belief system "or else..." when things are bad. to me, this includes those who are unable to think clearly or objectively themselves, such as the example I gave earlier of the elderly person who is manipulated into giving away their life savings (please read back for this - it's in this thread if you wish to find it). And those most at risk of being unable to make informed, unbiased and clear judgements are children. no one can argue with that, surely? the main caregiver to the child is the one trusted source for all knowledge for may years. So if that main caregiver decides that faith is what the child will have, it will follow without question. before too long, as described in the GoT duologue earlier, they will stop questioning that faith and believe it to the only way.

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:01 ----------

no thank you - I'm not here for points. it's why I hide them under my avatar. and before you question if that is because I'm in negative, I am not. but then, you can probably see that as an admin anyway.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

If you are of a religious persuasion.
The problem is that, right now, there are parents bringing their kids up to believe in Alusi, Banaitja, Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Amaterasu-Ō-Mi-Kami etc.....
Presumably you don't believe in any of those deities/gods?
What makes you think that you are correct in your choice of god and hence what you are teaching your kids to believe in?
Presumably it's your faith that makes you believe you are correct to do so but you have no proof to show the rest of us that you are correct in your actions as a parent. Hence we (and Dawkins) question the validity of your parenting where it pertains to religion.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

+1 :tu:

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

my mum tried to indoctrinate me into liking sprouts .

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

This little phrase highlighted shows how little you understand what faith is .No one of any faith chooses a faith to follow based on what "suits them" ,it is not a fashion statement .

"or without allowing them to stay neutral until a time comes in their life where they are mature enough to make their own choice?"

Again ,as has been pointed out already this is not how things work ,A religious family will always bring up children in that religions ways ,loving and caring parents will always allow their children a choice as to whether or not to continue following a religion as they grow older

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Just to pick up a few of your points ...

I have tried to explain how a parent with a faith does not instruct his children in that faith because it is convenient, but because he is convinced that it is every bit as important as preventing his child from falling over a cliff edge. That's how it is in our family. My wife and I are convinced of the truth revealed in the Bible. We bring up our kids accordingly. It is nothing to do with whether it's more convenient for us to take them to church as opposed to getting a babysitter in.

As with all the issues facing children, their ability to understand that they even have preferences, and free agency, develops from a state of non-existence at point of birth, to being highly developed, if not entirely controlled, by their mid teens. Parents take decisions for their children when they are unable to take a balanced decision for themselves. When one of my children, aged 3, decided they didn't want to go out and staged a sit in on the hall floor, I took action appropriate to their age and their ability to understand - and simply carried them to the car. A similar situation with one of my children, aged 15, might involve some discussion as to their place in the family and their responsibilities that flow from that. I will let you know how that works out when I have a 15 year old.

I, myself, gave up on church aged 14, when I was too big to be dragged out of bed on a Sunday. My parents accepted it, albeit reluctantly. They also accepted it when I chose to join an evangelical house church, aged 17, rather than recommit to the Church of England. Similar situations have occurred in my current church. The children are brought up in our faith. The teenagers are not compelled to continue in it.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Soviet Russia did.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

The Russian orthodox church continued to exist, and was tolerated, throughout the Soviet era. Same for the orthodox churches in all the Warsaw Pact countries, as was. There were plenty of underground churches as well. I know some of the people who used to smuggle Bibles in for them. ;)

There is no degree of tolerance in N Korea, although there is an underground church.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Are you saying all faiths are equal? If so, why would someone choose one faith over another? There must be something about the faith that the person thought suited them or that they agreed with more than the others.

Your last paragraph merely highlights precisely the points made by Dawkins. The choice is made to bring in the child to thinking in a particular way instead of saying from the start "there are many things you can believe in or not believe in. Let us examine them and when you are mature enough you can choose".

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Again, Dawkins' argument (and yours) is merely self-serving. He argues that other families should bring up their kids like Dawkins. Obviously Dawkins wants to commend his own parenting techniques; he chose them. The big no-no, however, is the implication that people who don't emulate Dawkins are behaving in a way that is dangerous to their children's development.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I'm not saying that the parent has to even deliberately 'indoctrinate' the child. Childrens minds are incredibly malleable and children naturally look to their parents for guidance on how the world works. If the parents believe in a god, the children are very likely to believe in that god. It's the way that we are wired.
Simply talking about god (with a sense of belief) or regularly praying will probably 'indoctrinate' the child.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------

I know that but the fact remains that communist doctrine was against religion and hence presumably the teaching of religion by parents to their children :shrug:

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Indeed. Which is why the argument that parents should not bring up children to believe in a certain faith is so dangerous. Even without active instruction from the parents, children would absorb their religious beliefs and practices in exactly the same way as they absorb everything from favoured holiday destinations to the brands in the kitchen cupboard and support for a particular football team. Once we accept Dawkins' argument that children need to be "protected" from religion, we are immediately on the road to accepting massive State intervention in child rearing within the family home.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

It all depends on up bringing,if a child is raised in a Catholic family then the chances are they would be Catholic in religion the same goes for any other religious upbringing ,Islam Jewish etc .It is not normally the case that parents line up religions and instruct children to choose one.It is more normal for children to be raised in a religious surrounding and reject religion upon reaching maturity ,which incidentally was the case with Dawkins .He was Christian until his teens and then rejected religion so quite why he would want to deny the choice to others is beyond me

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Do you not believe ideologies can be dangerous? Especially ideologies that are imprinted through manipulation?

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Exactly. Thank you.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

We'll have to disagree on your final assertion. I don't think that we are immediately on the road to state intervention. Simply pointing out to parents of all religions that they may be wrong in one aspect of the way that they are bringing up their children doesn't immediately call for state intervention. (imo)

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ----------

So that they don't have the struggle that he (and I) had?

Anyhoo. I'm off to cook a roast dinner now :)

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Social proofing

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Dawkins is an evangelical atheist who believes that allowing children to be instructed in religion ensures continuing tolerance for religion in society, even if many of those children grow up not to actively believe for themselves.

He presents his argument as logical and reasonable, pointing out that he isn't proposing to deny free-thinking adults the choice to be religious if that's what they want. However, Dawkins is perfectly well aware that insulating all children from religion would, within the space of a single generation, relegate religion to such a small corner of society that it would go largely unnoticed, and many new adults would never even find themselves in a position of wondering whether it is something they should choose to investigate.

To repeat - Dawkins is an evangelical atheist. His agenda is not to promote open, free choice, but to maximise exposure of his own world view while minimising those that compete with it.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Which is not how parenthood works.Children are raised according to the parents ethics and morals and then the child has the choice to reject them as they reach maturity ......exactly as Dawkins did

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

If you read back, we can see the potential affect of things working that way round by listening to the story of Russ' friend. Should we no try to void that scenario?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

If your question is theoretical, it's not relevant (to me at least). I'm not bringing up theoretical kids in a theoretical house. It's real, and I am neither manipulating nor behaving dangerously towards them.

If you're suggesting that those criticisms apply to my active instruction of my kids in the Christian faith, then I reject the premises of your question - see above.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Hmmm. One could easily apply that opinion to all ideologies.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

It's not theoretical. It's a simple question. It refers to ANY ideology or ANY manipulated scenario.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

That is exactly how every parent brings up children ..even atheist parents

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

You haven't read all of this thread thoroughly, have you?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

pretty much yes

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Then it surprises me your comment was made

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

why? you seem to be of the opinion that raising children is all about giving them choices ,it's not

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

It is not normal practice in a Christian family home (not any home I have ever come across, at any rate) to deny the existence of other views of the world. It is common practice, and self evidently reasonable behaviour, for parents to bring their children up in their own faith.

Which makes it theoretical, and far too broad to be of any use, or relevance.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

You don't think children should have choices about major life components that are not compulsory or mandatory such as rules or laws??? Really???

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Nope ,they can choose a flavour of ice cream but when it comes to morals, ethics,religion or lack of religion the parents make the choice and raise their children accordingly .Children have all the choice they want when they grow up .

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I can't help but think then, you are accepting that there may be an element of indoctrination involved when a family of faith brings up a child.

Apply it to a theoretical scenario of your choice that includes the elements of ideology and manipulation and give me an answer then. If you get stuck, you could choose the Nazi movement in WW2, communism, religion, a family of Everton fans trying to make a child follow their team, to name a few examples... Any scenario where the option of free choice is diminished through manipulation (reciprocation, commitment/consistency, scarcity, likeability, authority and/or social proofing). Do you not feel that if those elements are forcefully employed, that is wrong?

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

I implore you, please read this thread.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I implore you please to be more clear about what the point you are trying to make re me reading the thread which I have done .If you have something to say then say it

I have simply answered your question

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

At what age should a child start to choose what is best for them ?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Idi, I appreciate, from a debating point of view, what you're trying to do here. But I'm not biting. The simple, unavoidable truth of human existence is this: I am responsible for my children. Instructing them is my right and my responsibility. That includes my faith.

Down the road from here is a family which actively subscribes to paganism and they teach their kids accordingly. I believe them to be absolutely wrong in their world view, but I absolutely respect their right to teach it to their children, because that is how life works, and that is what a normal parent-child relationship looks like.

You just can't escape from the fact that Dawkins (and yours) is an argument that is simply self-serving, aiming not to open up equal exploration of competing world views, but to replace one with another and make atheism the default position in the life of a child, regardless of what that child's parents believe.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean it's the only or necessarily the best way. But this is where the whole point of this thread comes in. If we stop questioning why we do what we do, or stop asking ourselves if there is a better way or more suitable way, then we become stuck in the status quo. We can never progress. We cannot be more. And so the cycle continues from one generation to the next.

Faith, per-se, is NOT the issue. The manner in which some find themselves a part of it, is.

There's no fishing involved, I just want to be clear in how I understand your thinking. Much the same as you do me the grace of asking how I think. I will be as honest as I can be. :)

I understand that I am not always the most clear in what I say or ask, but I try to put things in a relatable manner so that others can identify. I may not know all the big words and my use of language can, at times, imply the wrong message. I apologise for that.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

[QUOTE=martyh;At what age should a child start to choose what is best for them ?

as soon as they can crawl out of the cave

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I struggle to think of a better way to raise children other than allowing parents every right to make choices and decisions for their children

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

[QUOTE=papa smurf;35762357][QUOTE=martyh;At what age should a child start to choose what is best for them ?

as soon as they can crawl out of the cave[/QUOTE]


and this is where a reasonable discussion descends into stupidity :rolleyes:

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Agreed. Unless someone can prove my way is wrong for my kids I'll carry on the way I know best.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

To do that we need to book your kids in to see a psychiatrist.

what day suits you and the kids? :D

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

there is enough evidence throughout history and in the present day world that shows indoctrination brings with it many risks, costs and dangers, which is the topic of this thread.

would it be a fair presumption to say that you do not feel you are indoctrinating your child/children into religion as per your own beliefs?
that they are given a fair chance to say 'no' or 'I don't want to go to church/mass/prayer/whatever' to which you listen, accept and respect without making them go anyway whilst trying to convince them that religion 'is best' (and that, more to the point, your religious beliefs are best and that they should really be a part of it)?
that they are fully aware and educated in not only other religions that they could chose to be a part of, but also not be a part of any religion at all?

and I repeat, ideologies themselves are not an issue for me. but the manner in which someone may become a part of it, is.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

The mind boggles.

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------

Even more boggling

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Indeed.

A sensible conversation can always be held with that man.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

You can only ever do what you think is best.

There's no qualification in parenting. You only know you've passed if they end up working useful members of society and not in jail, or on drugs.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I don't like this continued use of the word "indoctrinate" .The way that Dawkins uses the word in sentences such as “Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.” fills me with ideas of a '1984' style police checking up on parents .I wonder how his view would be enforced

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

There'd be equally enough evidence to suggest bringing children up within Christianity develops them in to well-adjusted adults. Your move.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I repeat, yet again: it is not ideology or religion per-se that is the issue for me. But the manner in which people may become a part of it, is.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you're judging someone's methods based on what might happen?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

And do you like sprouts today? Of course not.Eventually children make up their own mind and their own decisions.Quite a few decide to do exactly the opposite of what their parents want.;)

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

the're like religion i can cope with them at xmas if i have to :)

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

LOL

i used to hate sprouts. but always put my hand up when somebody says "who wants sprouts!" now :)

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

No. I'm judging those people based on the methods they actually use. There are many ways a result can be achieved.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

There are actually two biological reasons for the example you gave.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

In which case I really can't see any reason for your reluctance for Chris and I bringing up our respective children in these ways.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

If you're not indoctrinating (by definition), then I have no issue at all. Even if you were indoctrinating, it's not my place to tell you not to, but I do still think that it's wrong.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

And it would be my place to tell you I don't give two hoots about how you think I might be raising my children.

Why would you even assume I would be 'indoctrinating' anyway?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Forget any assumptions... By the definition of indoctrinating, are you indoctrinating your children into your faith by using any of the 6 principles of influence I have listed in this thread in a manner that removes choice from the child?

Not 'in you opinion'. No convoluted, riddled answers. No disclaimers. But by definition of 'indoctrinating', and referencing the 6 principles?

Let's just cut all the beating around the bush and finally get a yes/no answer.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

In other words you want to shoehorn me in to giving you a response that doesn't take in to consideration any personal variables and puts in in terms of your definition? OK fine, show me your boundaries again.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Idi, life is not a psychology textbook. I think your six principles are rather besides the point - as is your perjorative use of the word "indoctrination". (It does also have a non-perjorative sense but I get the impression you don't mean it that way - this may be why Russ is refusing to engage with you over it).

Children get more choices as they get older. In some areas they get choice when they themselves ask for it. To ask whether a chid being brought up in a faith is in that situation without "choice" is as meaningless as asking whether that same child is getting fish and chips for tea without "choice".

I can only repeat what I have already repeated multiple times in this thread: parents make choices for their kids. Clothes, food, holiday destinations, football teams and, yes, religion. This is what normal family life looks like. There is nothing sinister, manipulative or power-crazed about it.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Wasn't my example..but the point still remains that children have their own reasoning and intelligence at some point in their lives to either accept their parents ideology or reject it.I do have 40+ years experience of teenagers to back that up..

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

no. I believe Russ is being intentionally difficult, facetious and pedantic. which is a shame, because earlier on, he responded very well, for which I commended him in private. but in this case, he doesn't want to answer, i think, because he knows how it will look to the observer.

absolutely right. however, not getting a choice in fish for tea is not likely to determine a potentially life long, permanent change in the way in which one lives or thinks. about the future choices they make. about what they believe to be acceptable questions to ask. not having a choice in what t-shirt to wear is in no way comparable to a forced ideology.

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

yes they do. and I respect that your profession has given you that experience with teenagers. but I fear you are rather missing the point. to choose 'in' on something when mature enough, when one has a good understanding and balanced view of all options available is far easier than choosing 'out' of something that has become a major focus and factor of ones life because they were indoctrinated into a group at a time when they had no choice in the matter. I have no idea if members here indoctrinate - they dance around the questions. but if they do, then I think that is wrong. I won't tell them not to, it's not my place. but I do think it wrong.