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

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Another generalisation..

Of parents?

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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?

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.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Chris

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 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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

Or else what?
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.

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?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

Just their kids.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Headshot.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

Headshot.

What's the score now then?

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Headshot.

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.

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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 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.



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

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

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

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

If you'd like one yourself, headshot.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Just their kids.

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

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

If you'd like one yourself, headshot.

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

+1

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

my mum tried to indoctrinate me into liking sprouts .

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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?

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