Notices
Results 1 to 60 of 60

Thread: Age of religious consent

  1. #1 Age of religious consent 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I know parents who teach religious belief to their own children. Of course they do, it's inevitable and they have every right. I make a point of conforming with those children, which costs me nothing, and helps them get along the way they will. I'm normally very tolerant of religion and believe it mostly positive. I even encourage it, because I like to see convictions in people.

    But now I'm mad.

    Mother and father (me) both atheist. First our 7-year-old son is getting told at (secular) summer camp that "God controls everybody" among other misinterpreted "facts". Now we learn the child's new babysitter took him to church. She even collaborated with church friends to prepare a written list of spiritual/character flaws my son has, the church can Improve.

    I feel compelled now to ...warn... my son about these religious people and I think I'd have to explain religious thinking as a sort of virus, using terms and metaphors the boy can understand. I don't want to indoctrinate the child with atheism, explicitly, but that seems inevitable. I believe that no different than what parents of any faith are doing. It's sad isn't it?

    It feels like a war waged with child combatants. Why do will involve them in this crap?

    At what age do we regard other people's children as fair game? I mean, when do we stop pretending to share the parents' beliefs?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    For me it was at age of 12 or something, when I asked meself if I actually
    belive in Jaysus; the answer was negative and it developed from there.
    I think that it's a fair play to teach your children the "ways of the agnostic".
    `just me $0.02...


    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Age of religious consent 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I know parents who teach religious belief to their own children. Of course they do, it's inevitable and they have every right. I make a point of conforming with those children, which costs me nothing, and helps them get along the way they will. I'm normally very tolerant of religion and believe it mostly positive. I even encourage it, because I like to see convictions in people.

    But now I'm mad.

    Mother and father (me) both atheist. First our 7-year-old son is getting told at (secular) summer camp that "God controls everybody" among other misinterpreted "facts". Now we learn the child's new babysitter took him to church. She even collaborated with church friends to prepare a written list of spiritual/character flaws my son has, the church can Improve.

    I feel compelled now to ...warn... my son about these religious people and I think I'd have to explain religious thinking as a sort of virus, using terms and metaphors the boy can understand. I don't want to indoctrinate the child with atheism, explicitly, but that seems inevitable. I believe that no different than what parents of any faith are doing. It's sad isn't it?

    It feels like a war waged with child combatants. Why do will involve them in this crap?

    At what age do we regard other people's children as fair game? I mean, when do we stop pretending to share the parents' beliefs?
    unfortunately you cant watch them 24/7, someone is going to try to enforce some BS, all you can do is counter it. I had a very similar problem, I did not want to show favouritism one way or the other. So how I dealt with it was, by reading other fairy stories to my children with the hint and suggestion that this is where religious books belong, (some could say I'm imposing my views, but without any evidence there is no way you could teach religion as fact) especially throughout their gullible years, from 0 to 10 approximately.
    I remember one time a vicar from the local church called collecting for some fund or another, my daughter answered the door, she was about 8, as I was walking to the door she said to the vicar, she liked fairy stories too, I was slightly embarrassed but I don't think the vicar got it, well they do believe it's all true don't they.
    It seems to have worked, my children are very intelligent individuals, at the moment they only use religion for study in other subjects, if they wish to follow a religion thats up to them, though I do think that wont happen.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    a list of charicter flaws is what got me! Pong strike back! when they start ignoring your beliefs you do the same
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Age of religious consent 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I know parents who teach religious belief to their own children. Of course they do, it's inevitable and they have every right. I make a point of conforming with those children, which costs me nothing, and helps them get along the way they will. I'm normally very tolerant of religion and believe it mostly positive. I even encourage it, because I like to see convictions in people.

    But now I'm mad.
    You have every right to be, for the tolerance and understanding you have shown to others has not been shown to you. But as a comparison to test yourself and to try throwing in the face of these others. How would these others feel if someone babysitting their child had taken their child to a gay rights meeting, and can you understand why they might be upset?


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Mother and father (me) both atheist. First our 7-year-old son is getting told at (secular) summer camp that "God controls everybody" among other misinterpreted "facts". Now we learn the child's new babysitter took him to church. She even collaborated with church friends to prepare a written list of spiritual/character flaws my son has, the church can Improve.
    It sounds to me like you live in a community dominated by a religious group and in such a community events like this may be inevitable, but your reactions are just as inevitable and deserved. Since I live in Utah, what you experience is hardly strange to me. There are small towns in Utah which are 90% Mormon and that means that if you are non-mormon you will often be made to feel like you are non-human.

    However I would point out that this really isn't a characteristic of religion but a characteristic of ALL human groups of any kind. There will always be people in any group who overstep the bounds of decency and the larger the group the worse it is likely to be.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I feel compelled now to ...warn... my son about these religious people and I think I'd have to explain religious thinking as a sort of virus, using terms and metaphors the boy can understand. I don't want to indoctrinate the child with atheism, explicitly, but that seems inevitable. I believe that no different than what parents of any faith are doing. It's sad isn't it?
    Absolutely you should and it doesn't even have to be indoctrination, but simply doing your job as a parent to give them a balanced view that the community you live in lacks. I am Christian but I have shown my own children the videos of George Carlin and Pat Condella (as well as Richard Dawkins and zeitgeist), because they are funny (and even when they are not so funny) and because I strongly believe that my children should make up their own mind about these things.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    It feels like a war waged with child combatants. Why do will involve them in this crap?
    I have a suspicion that you are that last to think like this, and it is these religious people you are dealing with who have already been thinking of this as a war, possibly with you and your wife labeled as enemy number one. Unfortunately one of the consequences of religious freedom is that there is very little that you can do about this other than deciding to live elsewhere, or doing your part to get in their face and fight back.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    At what age do we regard other people's children as fair game?
    Well I don't really don't condone predatory relgion/philosophy at all, but you should definitely respect a parents right regarding how they think it is best to raise their children (within the limits of the law of course) as long as those children are minors. This would be about the age they can marry without the legal consent of their parents.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I mean, when do we stop pretending to share the parents' beliefs?
    Immediately. You should probably avoid some subjects if you are in a position of public trust like a school teacher, but otherwise it would be your duty to educate these children in the reality of the diversity of human thought.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Helpful reflections, everyone. Thanks.

    This community is Vancouver, Canada, probably the least Christian city in North America. The norm here is to push tolerance to the height of proactive accommodation. That's almost a religion in itself.

    For examples: the schools blatantly teach Native spiritualism; our politicians take gay pride parades as photo opportunity; and as for comparable Christian events there are none. The word "God" is secular taboo, paradoxically, unless you're taking about some African or Ancient Korean "God".

    MM's question about taking Christian kids to a gay rights meeting was right on the money. In fact there is an annual lesbian event in the neigbourhood, I've treated as just another summer-format festival at the local park, like the Mountie horse show, and I have strayed through there with other people's kids. It seemed innocent but the fact is I would give my opinion on "who are these people?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    yah... everybody likes lesbians :-D
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    If someone tried to convince my child (if I had one) with that nonsense... There would likely be violence involved on my part. I consider indoctrination as child abuse. And if someone abuses my child. I do have to say that I will smash face.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Now we learn the child's new babysitter took him to church. She even collaborated with church friends to prepare a written list of spiritual/character flaws my son has, the church can Improve.
    That is outrageous! I can't even imagine what I would do, but it would certainly be something dramatic, like legal action or such! I mean, I am thoroughly angry over here where I am sitting, so if it was my child....

    Good points everyone.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Indoctrination may be overt or covert.

    Yesterday my wife and I were having a front seat discussion about hepatitis, when a friend of my son interrupted, "What's a virus?" So I told the kids what a virus is, in essence. I also let them know that many viruses are "friendly" and don't really hurt you so they spread better. One remarked computers get viruses too. That's right, I said, they make the computer talk to other computers, to give them the virus, and so on. Feeling ironic.

    I primed those kids for Dawkins, didn't I?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    It should be 18 years old. Most when reaching that age would call it all crap anway. So it shows you how much propoganda is taught to kids. Poor soles. Mind you, I think people should beileve in religion through their own experiences, not told what is right and wrong by religious bullshit. Don't get me wrong, religion has its benefits, but brainwashing children is not going to yield any good results.

    Sorry if I sound like Q there.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Poor soles
    Yeah... I hate crappy shoes too...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Look, there are some straight laced types around here who think only a heel would make a pun like that. How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? I must ask you to toe the line or I shall have to put the boot in.

    Achilles
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Indoctrination may be overt or covert.

    Yesterday my wife and I were having a front seat discussion about hepatitis, when a friend of my son interrupted, "What's a virus?" So I told the kids what a virus is, in essence. I also let them know that many viruses are "friendly" and don't really hurt you so they spread better. One remarked computers get viruses too. That's right, I said, they make the computer talk to other computers, to give them the virus, and so on. Feeling ironic.

    I primed those kids for Dawkins, didn't I?
    That is completely philosophy neutral information and nothing more. Now if you had actually mentioned the name of Dawkins or one of his books, that would have been a different matter. Perhaps you are thinking that the Dawkin's meme analysis of religion is a rather obvious extention of these facts about viruses, but frankly if you go that far you can do the same for just about every popular human activity like music, films, books, computer games, restaraunt chains, etc.. I remember once when I visited Nevada thinking that slot machines was like a kind of virus reproducing in the sense that each one collects more than enough cash to pay for many more and thus they spread to every gas station, grocery store, laundrymat, etc.. like a freakin disease.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    @ Ophiolite


    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    It should be 18 years old.
    Age 7 or so is reckoned the crucial period for a person's philosophical outlook. By around age 10 there are only loose ends. Much later in late teens & early 20s people rediscover and consciously re-evaluate what they'd already decided with childlike expedience.

    So although 18 is prime time to figure these things out as an informed adult free of coercion, whatever you had at 7 is going to define you, even if you rebel against it.

    I feel it better to hold imperfect beliefs than none at all. For example better take some fringe or herd position than be simply amoral (Pong loathes agnosticism). And I think this has to come early, as the rational process that comes later just won't fill the depth of character. For example I have drawn some conclusions as an adult that urge extremist behaviour, but I simply can't follow up on them because I'm grounded by moderate attitudes built in childish innocence.

    We do want our child - now seven - to get roughly filled out now. So besides encouraging healthy behaviours and pointing out the larger world, I give metaphors like the aforementioned virus that compliment his intellectual toolkit. He fashions his self with what's on hand. My son's still young enough to take whatever's offered. His many questions are put to adults, any adults...

    ...what's bugs me most here is that I have to set the child against people, in a way, who besides offering beliefs I personally disagree with are basically good people and part of his world. This is so much easier for me than him.

    I guess dealing with the fact that adults hold conflicting beliefs is part of this stage in my son's development. It reminds me of when another baby would snatch a toy from my baby, at the playground: he'd be stunned, rolling the fact over in his mind and trying to fit it to his innocent worldview. He has to learn respectful disagreement, and why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    i wouldn't worry about it too much, just educate the kid the best you can, encourage him/her to make up their own mind.

    if your child asks you if god made the world, ask him/her who made god.

    i think most kids follow their parents beleifs anyway. My parents were not the sort that followed organised religion, and rarely discussed their own personal beleifs with us.

    they wanted us to make up our own mind so they sent us to sunday school during primary school.

    we are all 20+ now and, while not denying the possibility of something like "god", we are definitely scientifically minded enough to know that we don't know, and neither does anyone else (though they may think they do).

    though it sounds like the church-goers in your area are alot more aggressive where you are than where i grew up.

    just thought i would share my experiences on the matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Poor soles
    Yeah... I hate crappy shoes too...
    I don't mind I, wear whatever suits me.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    In my humble opinion. Manipulating children with religion before their atleast 15 should be considered child abuse. Mental wounds lie deeper than physical ones. Teaching children fairytales with no roots in reality and totally void of facts may ruin and weaken them.

    Edit: Meaning, let them discover and learn things on their own. Let them become strong selfwilled induviduals. Not mindless sheep enslaved to a book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I think it is ridiculous to think that in a society where ideas are exchanged freely and often, that we can keep children from hearing all sorts of things.

    I remember coming home while in first grade and asked my mother what fuck meant. Perhaps Pong would rather his children had been introduced to sexual practices rather than religious practices?

    I don't see a lot of difference in people telling children about God and people telling children there is no God. How would they ever be able to make up their minds one way or the other if they were not exposed to both ideologies.

    I would expect a Pong-like reaction from Muslim parents if their children were exposed to anything other than Islam. We Christians have long accepted that our children are going to be exposed to all sorts of things which are opposed to Christianity.

    Some will leave the teaching of their youth, some will not. Some will leave and return. We just leave it in the hands of God and trust He will save those who belong to Him. Who knows, maybe Pong's kids are among those whom God will save?!!
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    So let me get this straight: are you condoning the babysitter's actions Dayton? Because if you are, then you are worse than I had thought…
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    KALSTER said: (several posts ago)

    Quote:
    Now we learn the child's new babysitter took him to church. She even collaborated with church friends to prepare a written list of spiritual/character flaws my son has, the church can Improve.
    That is outrageous! I can't even imagine what I would do, but it would certainly be something dramatic, like legal action or such! I mean, I am thoroughly angry over here where I am sitting, so if it was my child....
    For the life of me, I cannot find a post that says what you quoted. I thought maybe it was in the post of someone on my ignore list so i went and opened it up and nothing there either.

    Without some greater details of the incident you are citing, I know very little of what you are talking. Or at least point me to the post it came from. I have scanned this entire thread three times now and could not find it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    wow dayton, you really are good at ignoring the obvious.


    I know parents who teach religious belief to their own children. Of course they do, it's inevitable and they have every right. I make a point of conforming with those children, which costs me nothing, and helps them get along the way they will. I'm normally very tolerant of religion and believe it mostly positive. I even encourage it, because I like to see convictions in people.

    But now I'm mad.

    Mother and father (me) both atheist. First our 7-year-old son is getting told at (secular) summer camp that "God controls everybody" among other misinterpreted "facts". Now we learn the child's new babysitter took him to church. She even collaborated with church friends to prepare a written list of spiritual/character flaws my son has, the church can Improve.

    I feel compelled now to ...warn... my son about these religious people and I think I'd have to explain religious thinking as a sort of virus, using terms and metaphors the boy can understand. I don't want to indoctrinate the child with atheism, explicitly, but that seems inevitable. I believe that no different than what parents of any faith are doing. It's sad isn't it?

    It feels like a war waged with child combatants. Why do will involve them in this crap?

    At what age do we regard other people's children as fair game? I mean, when do we stop pretending to share the parents' beliefs?
    though you probably have me ignored already right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    OK, thanks, redrighthand. I read that post four times and did not catch that sentence.

    Well, anyway, I would not normally condone anybody taking someone else's kid to anything without the parents' approval, explicit or perhaps tacit. Well, maybe the ice cream store. But even then, you could run afoul of somebody's home rules.

    On the other hand, I can think of circumstances where I might not object all that much. Say you left your kid with people for the weekend, knowing they were churched people. If you had not discussed it, I should think you could expect them to take the kid to church with them. Perhaps the babysitter should think to ask. Of course, we do not know if this was a regular Sunday morning service or some other church meeting. I would also think there is some responsibility on the part of the parent to know something about the babysitter.

    I think as a rule we would not want others. unbeknownst to us, taking our children someplace we would not particularly want them to go. I can't think of a circumstance where I would, in any way, condone someone taking someone else's 7-year-old kid to a porn movie.

    I have no idea what kind of a relationship the parents, Pong (and Ping?), have with the babysitter. If this was a first-time babysit for this babysitter, it would be different from someone who has babysat the kid extensively.

    I don't think I am in possession of enough information on this incident to render a definitive judgment. The babysitter may well have thought she (he?) had permission to take the kid to church. We do not know what the babysitter's side of the story is.

    There is a Proverb that says to the effect: "Anybody's story sounds good until the other guy comes along to set the record straight."

    I think KALSTER probably needs more information before he gets all indignant and ascribes to me a position I don't have.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    In my humble opinion. Manipulating children with religion before their atleast 15 should be considered child abuse. Mental wounds lie deeper than physical ones. Teaching children fairytales with no roots in reality and totally void of facts may ruin and weaken them.

    Edit: Meaning, let them discover and learn things on their own. Let them become strong selfwilled induviduals. Not mindless sheep enslaved to a book.
    Yes people once thought that way. Now we know better that the childs imagination should be encouraged rather than stomped on by those who cannot tolerate challenges to their tiny little minds. So here we have the voice of the ideologue in the advent of the new atheist fundamentalism calling for the enslavement of all children to their conception of reality and determined to prove to the world that atheists don't have to be intellegent.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I think KALSTER probably needs more information before he gets all indignant and ascribes to me a position I don't have.
    Well Dayton, I did post it as a question didn't I?

    In any case, we do not have all the information, true, but we have enough to be pissed off by the incident (like I said, I am pissed off as an outsider, imagine how Pong must feel). The actions of the babysitter exhibit many of the attributes many people abhor about religion. I mean, "She even collaborated with church friends to prepare a written list of spiritual/character flaws my son has, the church can Improve". Now, I understand that the babysitter probably meant well, but that is still not the point. She stepped WAY over line there.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I think it is ridiculous to think that in a society where ideas are exchanged freely and often, that we can keep children from hearing all sorts of things.
    I agree. Moreover I think children should hear all sorts of things. Take language acquisition for example. We know that children raised bilingually will later, on average, be more fluent in either language than children raised with just one. For negative example, Frederick II had zero-speech experiments performed on babies, to learn which tongue they would spontaneously babble... presumably it would be Hebrew or Latin, to settle debate over which was God's true language... and of course those understimulated babies atrophied and in fact died. We now understand children's neurons have a dreadfully short lifespan if unstimulated, and the proven way to maximize later life intelligence is extremely varied stimulation early on. I think that in the case of older children intellectual stimulation is important in the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I remember coming home while in first grade and asked my mother what fuck meant. Perhaps Pong would rather his children had been introduced to sexual practices rather than religious practices?
    Contrary to my inclination, I believe my son must have experiences I simply can't willingly allow, to round out his experience. He must see me stupid, wrong, & flustered. He must know pain. So I don't exactly welcome shocks, yet I know they are necessary and thank goodness I can't shelter the boy as much as I would like.

    Exposure to heavyweight belief systems and even parental anguish is going to force this child to grow up in ways I cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I don't see a lot of difference in people telling children about God and people telling children there is no God.
    Amen to that.

    We haven't told our son we believe God is nonsense... yet. The Abrahamic God just never came up, as we pretty well ignore Him. But now we can't ignore Him.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    a Pong-like reaction
    What do you mean by that? :x

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Who knows, maybe Pong's kids are among those whom God will save?!!
    If the shoe fits, then yeah.



    We borrowed three children's books from the library today. Amazing Optical Illusions (a picture book), Great Scientists - Discover the pioneers who changed the way we think about our world, and Many Ways - How families practice their beliefs (Papa's pick). The kid won't even glance at the religion book. :?


    For the record, our evangelistic babysitter doesn't have a clue about religion's place in society. We're partial to her because we've been friends since before our son was born and she's Japanese (my son's second language, and needs maintenance). However she's enthralled by North American culture as she sees it ... I'm sure she wouldn't bat an eye if we kept an assault rifle in the closet. Coming from a homogeneous culture, she has a sketchy grasp of diversity or tolerance. This is her third extended visit to a Canada that eludes her. She got into that church through a previous host family. So the zealotry is understandable.

    She thinks my (immigrant) wife deprives our son of proper assimilation. If that lady ever has a daughter I'll make a point of admitting the girl to a geisha house.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Is she over 18? I could make her forget about religion...





    Hot japanese girls are my weakness...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pong asked:
    What do you mean by that? [A pong-like reaction]
    I thought it was you who was so violently opposed to someone taking your child to church. But, it appears, it was a case of KALSTER being more offended by it that you were. So, I should have said a KALSTER-like reaction.

    I do not approve of the church people doing a character study of your child and making a list of character improvements for him. A child of that age does not have much established character to change in the first place. Plus, it is not up to them in the first place. If you see character qualities developing that are undesirable to you, it is your place to work on them.

    I am not surprized that your kids are not particularly interested in religion book since that is apparently not something that has been emphasized in your home. I suspect there are families where the opposite would be true. But, overall, I am not sure that 7-year-old kids are awfully religion oriented even in religious families. I suspect 7 year old boys would be far more interested in dinosaurs or motorcycles than religion.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    But, it appears, it was a case of KALSTER being more offended by it that you were. So, I should have said a KALSTER-like reaction.
    It appears so , yes. :?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I think it is ridiculous to think that in a society where ideas are exchanged freely and often, that we can keep children from hearing all sorts of things.

    I remember coming home while in first grade and asked my mother what fuck meant. Perhaps Pong would rather his children had been introduced to sexual practices rather than religious practices?

    I don't see a lot of difference in people telling children about God and people telling children there is no God. How would they ever be able to make up their minds one way or the other if they were not exposed to both ideologies.

    I would expect a Pong-like reaction from Muslim parents if their children were exposed to anything other than Islam. We Christians have long accepted that our children are going to be exposed to all sorts of things which are opposed to Christianity.

    Some will leave the teaching of their youth, some will not. Some will leave and return. We just leave it in the hands of God and trust He will save those who belong to Him. Who knows, maybe Pong's kids are among those whom God will save?!!
    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Right or wrong, indignation is a splendid virtue.



    So, Daytonturner, how do you feel about inoculating children with the concepts of meme & delusion prior to introducing beliefs (e.g. God/no-God)? Notice my son's book picks betray what you might call "post modernism" in that he digs the notion truth is fickle and subjective. Obviously he now digests "facts" with a caveat. Is it fair to give children that perspective, through kindergarten lessons for example?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    pavlos said:

    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    At least there was some subtantive information in my post. This one is nothing more than an emotional rant. Tell me what is inaccurate in the post or why you disagree with something I wrote. Calling it intellectual dishonest and calling me a liar are classic ad hominom attack. What you have written is the real BS.

    The last sentence might be applicable to Islam where young people are convinced that becoming a suicide-murder bomber is a glorious thing. However, your contention does not explain why (depending on the denomination) up to 75 percent of the youths brought up in Christian churches leave them when they leave the nest. Does not sound like enforcement to me.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    pavlos' response suggests that he/she knows because such a thing was done to him/her, which just goes to show that all such an approach is likely to do is just the opposite of what it supposedly intends.

    Cool anecdote in your signature, by the way.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Its a shame most atheists include their experiences which forms their approach which adds to the bias. Take Q for example.

    Then again there are religious people that desperatley try to explain all they say in blind hope its right (just like me llast year), again adding bias. I guess like Ophiolite says, we really could use a pseudo-religion forum.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    pavlos said:

    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    At least there was some subtantive information in my post. This one is nothing more than an emotional rant. Tell me what is inaccurate in the post or why you disagree with something I wrote. Calling it intellectual dishonest and calling me a liar are classic ad hominom attack. What you have written is the real BS.
    ok here goes:
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I don't see a lot of difference in people telling children about God and people telling children there is no God.
    This is a lie as you don't tell children there is no god, The belief that a god exists, is forced on them from year one. It is nonsensical to try to explain non-existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    How would they ever be able to make up their minds one way or the other if they were not exposed to both ideologies.
    What idealogies are those. This is your intellectual dishonesty rearing its beastly head.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The last sentence might be applicable to Islam where young people are convinced that becoming a suicide-murder bomber is a glorious thing. However, your contention does not explain why (depending on the denomination) up to 75 percent of the youths brought up in Christian churches leave them when they leave the nest. Does not sound like enforcement to me.
    How many would be believers if they never were indoctrinated, I think it would be about 1%

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    pavlos' response suggests that he/she knows because such a thing was done to him/her, which just goes to show that all such an approach is likely to do is just the opposite of what it supposedly intends.

    Cool anecdote in your signature, by the way.
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Its a shame most atheists include their experiences which forms their approach which adds to the bias. Take Q for example.

    Then again there are religious people that desperatley try to explain all they say in blind hope its right (just like me llast year), again adding bias. I guess like Ophiolite says, we really could use a pseudo-religion forum.
    no wrong I've never been indoctrinated.
    This is what I said when I joined
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    no, I'm a realist, in the strict sense of the word, but if you like you can call me a rational, the use of atheist implies i would be without god, but I was never with it in the first place, I was born without a concept of god and have not, like most, had one forced on me, so no I'm not an atheist, not in the literal sense, thank you.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...ghlight=#87551
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Who knows, maybe Pong's kids are among those whom God will save?!!
    You sir, are a pompous ass.

    Apologies to the mods and admins for the blatant ad hom, but it needed saying.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pavlos said:

    daytonturner wrote:
    I don't see a lot of difference in people telling children about God and people telling children there is no God.
    This a lie as you dont tell children there is no god, The belief that a god exists is forced on them from year one. It is nonsensical to try to explain non-existence.
    I'm not sure what isolated existence you have lived, but I can tell you that churched children are often challenged both directly and indirectly by others concerning what they have been told about God. I think this happens about the time children begin associating with other children in kindergarten or even pre-school. A typical exchange would be that some churched kid says something about God or Jesus and some other kid says, "Aw, my dad says there ain't no such thing as God." My bet is that a kid hears the idea that there is no God even before s/he hears the idea that there is no Santa Claus. I might agree that adults are not going around conducting intellectual discussions on the topid with pre-schoolers or trying to focus on such abstract ideas. I would also contend that parents begin to inflict their beliefs on children from day one no matter what those beliefs are. Children are born with a blank brain, totally unprogrammed. They do not learn a lot without input. Pavlos seems to be a good example of this.

    Pavlos continues:


    daytonturner wrote:
    How would they ever be able to make up their minds one way or the other if they were not exposed to both ideologies.
    What idealogies are those. This is your intellectual dishonesty rearing its beastly head.
    I think it is your intellectual dishonesty allows you to feel that it is possible to make up one's mind based on one side of an issue. If all you had ever heard was that a tomato is blue, you would not have the option of deciding that they are actually red. If it comes to the idea of deciding whether you believe in God, you must have been exposed to both the ideology that God exists and the ideology that God does not exist. I would think refusing to allow your charges to be exposed to both sides of an issue would be intellectual dishonesty. But that is what you seem to be advocating -- that children should not be exposed to the idea that there is a God and thus deprived of the option to accept God. And you think that would be intellectual honesty. How sick!!!

    Pavlos proves the sickness:

    How many would be believers if they never were indoctrinated, I think it would be about 1%
    Here you are obviously advocating that people should not be exposed to concepts that you do not agree with -- such as God and Christianity and, probably, conservative politics.

    The idea of indoctrination is exactly what you are advocating. Indoctrination involves not only the teaching of partisan information but also the barring introduction of any contravening information. Indoctrination is successful where opposition is oppressed (duh?!). Oppression is usually employed where the indoctrinators fear that opposition would defeat their ideals.

    This term (indoctrination) is vastly misused on this forum by people who have been severely influenced by the anti-religious faction as represented by Richard Dawkins. It means to them the exposure to any idea with which they disagree.

    When it comes to the discussion between atheists and believers, it is the atheists who wish to oppress the views of the religious. As a religious person, I am thankful for the existence of atheists. They make it so much easier to show how horrible the world would be without God.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) said:

    You sir, are a pompous ass.

    Apologies to the mods and admins for the blatant ad hom, but it needed saying.
    Your salvation, sir, is that no human language has devised a word which is adequately derisive enough to describe you.

    No apologies to the mods or admins who tolerate and allow numerous ad homonym posts like this when they denigrate Christians but chastise Christians for making them in response.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    Your salvation, sir, is that no human language has devised a word which is adequately derisive enough to describe you.
    .
    You should just be thankful you weren't standing in front of me when you made that asinine remark, or I would have dropped you on your pompous ass.

    But, after thinking it over, I couldn't help but realize that is the level of kindergarten superiority theists have contrived for their lack of self-esteem.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Pavlos said:

    daytonturner wrote:
    I don't see a lot of difference in people telling children about God and people telling children there is no God.
    This a lie as you dont tell children there is no god, The belief that a god exists is forced on them from year one. It is nonsensical to try to explain non-existence.
    I'm not sure what isolated existence you have lived, but I can tell you that churched children are often challenged both directly and indirectly by others concerning what they have been told about God. I think this happens about the time children begin associating with other children in kindergarten or even pre-school. A typical exchange would be that some churched kid says something about God or Jesus and some other kid says, "Aw, my dad says there ain't no such thing as God." My bet is that a kid hears the idea that there is no God even before s/he hears the idea that there is no Santa Claus. I might agree that adults are not going around conducting intellectual discussions on the topid with pre-schoolers or trying to focus on such abstract ideas. I would also contend that parents begin to inflict their beliefs on children from day one no matter what those beliefs are. Children are born with a blank brain, totally unprogrammed. They do not learn a lot without input.
    Agreed, but do you think filling their heads with baseless BS is the right way to give them input, shouldn't they be given the respect of total truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Pavlos continues:

    daytonturner wrote:
    How would they ever be able to make up their minds one way or the other if they were not exposed to both ideologies.
    What idealogies are those. This is your intellectual dishonesty rearing its beastly head.
    I think it is your intellectual dishonesty allows you to feel that it is possible to make up one's mind based on one side of an issue. If all you had ever heard was that a tomato is blue, you would not have the option of deciding that they are actually red.
    well thats the difference, I would not decide, until I had seen one, thats using you critical mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If it comes to the idea of deciding whether you believe in God, you must have been exposed to both the ideology that God exists and the ideology that God does not exist.
    No, only the ideology a god exists. It is nonsensical to demand evidence of non-existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I would think refusing to allow your charges to be exposed to both sides of an issue would be intellectual dishonesty.
    if there were two sides, but there is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    But that is what you seem to be advocating -- that children should not be exposed to the idea that there is a God
    No, that is blatantly obvious, the burden of proof always falls on the person claiming something exists. If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    and thus deprived of the option to accept God. And you think that would be intellectual honesty. How sick!!!
    Oh yes we can always lie to the children.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    Pavlos proves the sickness:

    How many would be believers if they never were indoctrinated, I think it would be about 1%
    Here you are obviously advocating that people should not be exposed to concepts that you do not agree with -- such as God and Christianity and, probably, conservative politics.
    It has nothing to do with what I think or feel, it has only to do with what has evidence and what doesn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    The idea of indoctrination is exactly what you are advocating. Indoctrination involves not only the teaching of partisan information but also the barring introduction of any contravening information. Indoctrination is successful where opposition is oppressed (duh?!). Oppression is usually employed where the indoctrinators fear that opposition would defeat their ideals.

    This term (indoctrination) is vastly misused on this forum by people who have been severely influenced by the anti-religious faction as represented by Richard Dawkins. It means to them the exposure to any idea with which they disagree.

    When it comes to the discussion between atheists and believers, it is the atheists who wish to oppress the views of the religious. As a religious person, I am thankful for the existence of atheists. They make it so much easier to show how horrible the world would be without God.
    And if it wasn't for the reasoned man, the world would have ended centuries ago. If the religious had there way.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    How do people feel about inoculating children with the concepts of meme & delusion prior to introducing beliefs (e.g. God/no-God)? In other words making them cynical of faith? Is it fair to give children that perspective, through kindergarten lessons for example?

    I reckon most Christians idealize the childlike sincerity of little ones praying to Christ, and hope that faith continues pure through life.

    Also, atheists cannot win by rampant skepticism either, since our children must entrust all moral eggs to society's basket.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pavlos said:

    [T]he burden of proof always falls on the person claiming something exists. If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence.
    That's not true at all. If I were claiming the sun did not exist, the burden of proof would be on me. If I refuse to accept any of your evidence that the sun exists, no matter how unreasonable that might be, you cannot convince me the sun exists. When you say there is no evidence that God exists, you are merely telling me that you do not accept the evidence that we who believe consider, well, evident.

    The burden of proof actually lies on the person who wishes to deviate from that which is generally accepted as true. So in my example above, it is not really up to you to prove the sun exists, but up to me to prove that it doesn't.

    In the argument about God's existence, you do not win merely by saying I can't prove He exists any more than I win by saying you can't prove He does not exist. The burden of proof is on both sides.

    Pavlos said (of my tomato analogy):

    well thats the difference, I would not decide, until I had seen one,
    I did not state that well. My idea was that every time you saw a tomato, you had been told it was blue. It would not be until someone told you it was really red that you would have to make a decision.

    My analogy was that on a religious level, if all you were exposed to was a specific religious concept with no contravening information, you would not know the difference and that would be your base reference point. And if the only information on other ideas you received was the biased base reference version, you would not have the necessary information to make an informed decision.

    It is only when those in charge are able to effectively oppress opposition that such a case can exist. We do not have such conditions here in the West. While we are subjected to all sorts of propaganda and biased opinions, we still have access to the other side of the story. Indoctrination is virtually impossible here.

    If you lived in a country where some ideology oppressed opposition, you would not even know enough from the outside to recognize that you were a victim of indoctrination. The most obvious recent examples of this are communism and Islamic nations.

    Pavlos also said:

    And if it wasn't for the reasoned man, the world would have ended centuries ago.
    Might I point out that it is only in the last two or three centuries that a (very) small percentage of people have decided to deviate from belief in God of some kind. So your claim sort of goes against the grain of both history and present day reality. Your world is still mostly under the influence of believers. I just don't know where you are getting the idea that atheists have been big contributors to world progress. It just hasn't happened that way. In order to be valid, an idea must match up to reality. In reality, the main atheistic contributions have been World War II, The Soviet Union and Mao's China. You cannot possibly believe those have been good things.

    The free world (mostly Europe and North America) has been the most productive in the areas of technology, social progress, freedom of thought and just about any other aspect of life which we consider valuable. Whatever contributions we have received from the rest of the world has be de minimus in comparison. I would think the list of admirable atheist leaders in the free world would be rather small compared to a similar list of believing leaders.

    Which is to say, basically, you're wrong -- just plain wrong if you believe that religious people are not reasoned people. I would think such a belief would show you to be an unreasoned person.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    How do people feel about inoculating children with the concepts of meme & delusion prior to introducing beliefs (e.g. God/no-God)? In other words making them cynical of faith? Is it fair to give children that perspective, through kindergarten lessons for example?

    I reckon most Christians idealize the childlike sincerity of little ones praying to Christ, and hope that faith continues pure through life.

    Also, atheists cannot win by rampant skepticism either, since our children must entrust all moral eggs to society's basket.
    It is important for atheistic parents to provide a balanced perspective to their children. That is, simply being an atheist means little on its own. I think that without this balanced view nihilism an get out of control. We are still human and even though love, empathy and kindness have no objective value in terms of the universe, the balanced view would be that it has very high importence as part of a subjective view in terms of humanity. We can't survive without our emotions and the suppression of them (the beneficial ones) is to deny who we are. I am of the opinion that trying to instil a real capacity for empathy and critical thinking in our children is of utmost importance. Our inbuilt humanity will take care of the rest.

    This has to happen in the first 8 to 10 years of the child’s life, as that is when their personalities form and it would be increasingly difficult after that. That is the reason why, I believe, we are having so much trouble explaining science and empathy to people that did not get exposed to critical thinking and empathy in their preteens. Empathy involves a deep, brave and honest self analysis and then comparing the actions and emotions of others to the results of this self analysis. It should be an ongoing process and very few truths should be closed to amendment.

    Wow, I should get a following and charge for membership…
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    pavlos' response suggests that he/she knows because such a thing was done to him/her, which just goes to show that all such an approach is likely to do is just the opposite of what it supposedly intends.

    Cool anecdote in your signature, by the way.
    no wrong I've never been indoctrinated.
    Ah so this is an admission that when you were talking to dayton you really did not have the slightest idea what you were talking about but just freely expressing your own blind and self-righteous prejudice that you are better than everyone else.

    I see.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Pavlos said:

    [T]he burden of proof always falls on the person claiming something exists. If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence.
    That's not true at all. If I were claiming the sun did not exist, the burden of proof would be on me. If I refuse to accept any of your evidence that the sun exists, no matter how unreasonable that might be, you cannot convince me the sun exists. When you say there is no evidence that God exists, you are merely telling me that you do not accept the evidence that we who believe consider, well, evident.

    The burden of proof actually lies on the person who wishes to deviate from that which is generally accepted as true. So in my example above, it is not really up to you to prove the sun exists, but up to me to prove that it doesn't.

    In the argument about God's existence, you do not win merely by saying I can't prove He exists any more than I win by saying you can't prove He does not exist. The burden of proof is on both sides.
    Lol. I never wrote this and I don't know who did but it is apt.

    1. Not really with concerns to statements to the non-existence of something. I'm sure many times in your life you have made such statements: "santa claus does not exist" without ever being under the impression that there is some onus on you to 'prove' that he doesn't. It only works the other way around - a positive claim to the existence of something. For example: "santa claus does exist". Interestingly, this applies to any unobserved, claimed existing entity.

    2. It comes down to statement types. Consider the following:

    - all swans are white

    - there is a black swan in London

    As you can see, the first statement is falsifiable, (show one non-white swan and it's falsified) but it isn't verifiable, (regardless to how much you search you could have missed a non-white swan).

    The second statement is the opposite - it is verifiable, (you see the black swan) but not falsifiable, (if you don't see it that's because it flew somewhere else etc).

    'god/leprechaun/fairy exists' statements are of the second type - they are verifiable, (show a god, leprechaun etc), but are not falsifiable, (if you don't see one it's because it's invisible etc) - hence the onus can only be upon the claimant to the existence of.

    Now, along with fairies, dragons, demons, sasquatch and el chupacbra I can quite happily state that a god "doesn't exist" and go about my merry way until such time when you have evidence to show that this entity does exist. There is simply no reason to take the claims of theists as credible. If they contend otherwise I give them ample opportunity to make their case. Alas it typically ends up with, "it says in this book.." which is utterly pathetic.
    Thanks to whomever you are

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    Pavlos also said:

    And if it wasn't for the reasoned man, the world would have ended centuries ago.
    Might I point out that it is only in the last two or three centuries that a (very) small percentage of people have decided to deviate from belief in God of some kind. So your claim sort of goes against the grain of both history and present day reality. Your world is still mostly under the influence of believers. I just don't know where you are getting the idea that atheists have been big contributors to world progress. It just hasn't happened that way. In order to be valid, an idea must match up to reality. In reality, the main atheistic contributions have been World War II, The Soviet Union and Mao's China. You cannot possibly believe those have been good things.

    The free world (mostly Europe and North America) has been the most productive in the areas of technology, social progress, freedom of thought and just about any other aspect of life which we consider valuable. Whatever contributions we have received from the rest of the world has be de minimus in comparison. I would think the list of admirable atheist leaders in the free world would be rather small compared to a similar list of believing leaders.

    Which is to say, basically, you're wrong -- just plain wrong if you believe that religious people are not reasoned people. I would think such a belief would show you to be an unreasoned person.
    Lol, wrong:

    "In Ancient Hinduism, there were a couple of schools who used to teach non-existence of God. The first one, Samkhya, used to believe in duality of existing things - as per the book, saamkhya kaarikaa. Prakriti (Nature) and Purusha (Consciousness) were thought to be the basic building blocks of everything."

    Ever heard of the Carvakas or the atomists look them up. Or even Buddhism. they lack belief in a god. and this is the dictionary of ancient and modern atheists. http://www.marxists.org/history/fran...9/atheists.htm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi.../ancient.shtml
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    pavlos' response suggests that he/she knows because such a thing was done to him/her, which just goes to show that all such an approach is likely to do is just the opposite of what it supposedly intends.

    Cool anecdote in your signature, by the way.
    no wrong I've never been indoctrinated.
    Ah so this is an admission that when you were talking to dayton you really did not have the slightest idea what you were talking about,
    No, not at all, I've study over many years, I've investigated and found via evidence what I've stated here, it would be infantile to claim something, without having some knowledge of the subject.
    You cant claim that I spag-ed(without the "G-od" self personified as X(something I not)) this is a religious problem in other words, having no idea what I was saying.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    I have removed this reply and begun a new thread to discuss religion and the indoctrination of children.

    Because certain people on this one are ruining the discussion by being childish pathetic and rude.

    Grow up
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pavlos said:

    Lol. I never wrote this and I don't know who did but it is apt.
    Further proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. The entire quote from just a few posts ago was:

    No, that is blatantly obvious, the burden of proof always falls on the person claiming something exists. If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists.
    What is unbelievable is that even after I have shown you that the statement can't be true, you continue to endorse it. Which confirms my belief about you, and some others here, that no amount of truth or factual data or logic will deter you from believing whatever it is that you want to believe, no matter how foolish, how illogical, how untrue or how unfactual it is. This is the curse of postmodern thinking.

    You do not even understand, apparently, that your swan analogy (straight from Dawkins) disproves your claim. I showed you an instance where the burden of proof was on the person claiming something doesn't exist. Ergo, your claim that the burden is on the person claiming something exists, is wrong.

    You are like Pilate when he asks Jesus, "What is truth?" He was not asking what actually was the truth, but making a statement -- Truth doesn't have anything to do with this. You are not going to be swayed by any reality if it disagrees with what you want to think.

    Incidentally, you may have to take el chupacabara off your list. I think they now have a purported body of a creature which, while it may not fulfill all the lore of chupacabara, may be what people have talked about.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    ahhh perhaps i am mistaken...is this thread about religion, or is it simply somewhere to argue and practice ad hominem skills and insults?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Pavlos said:

    Lol. I never wrote this and I don't know who did but it is apt.
    Further proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. The entire quote from just a few posts ago was:

    No, that is blatantly obvious, the burden of proof always falls on the person claiming something exists. If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists.
    What is unbelievable is that even after I have shown you that the statement can't be true, you continue to endorse it.
    Because you have yet to show, how it cant be true, all you've shown is your what you would like it to mean (wishful thinking).
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Which confirms my belief about you, and some others here, that no amount of truth or factual data or logic will deter you from believing whatever it is that you want to believe,
    Lol, thats rich I have no beliefs.
    You however are claiming X exists but provide no evidence to support it. It is not someone else's responsibility to disprove your claim, but is rather your responsibility as you're the person who is making the bold claim, the onus remains with you, to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. no matter how foolish, how illogical, how untrue or how nonfactual it is.( negative proof fallacy)
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You do not even understand, apparently, that your swan analogy (straight from Dawkins) disproves your claim.
    How so, it clearly shows where your wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I showed you an instance where the burden of proof was on the person claiming something doesn't exist.
    No you didn't you only showed your wishful thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Ergo, your claim that the burden is on the person claiming something exists, is wrong.
    Then do feel free to show with reason, how.

    your committing the negative proof fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
    "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    What a complete and utter load of intellectual dishonesty, in plain English BS.
    Bite your tongue you lier.
    religious children are enforced to believe from the year dot.
    pavlos' response suggests that he/she knows because such a thing was done to him/her, which just goes to show that all such an approach is likely to do is just the opposite of what it supposedly intends.

    Cool anecdote in your signature, by the way.
    no wrong I've never been indoctrinated.
    Ah so this is an admission that when you were talking to dayton you really did not have the slightest idea what you were talking about,
    No, not at all, I've study over many years, I've investigated and found via evidence what I've stated here, it would be infantile to claim something, without having some knowledge of the subject.
    You cant claim that I spag-ed(without the "G-od" self personified as X(something I not)) this is a religious problem in other words, having no idea what I was saying.
    I do claim what is evident, that you speak according to your prejudices. The only question is whether you criticize what you know or are simply justifying an attitude of superiority. This is made evident by the ignorance of your implicit premise that that those other parents are a problem and your parents are "special".

    All parents inflict their children with their strongly held beliefs. That is unavoidable. But there is only one kind of belief that is a little different and that is the belief that children need to make up their own mind. A parent with that belief will strive to expose their children to a multiplicity of ideas to give their children more to choose from. But one thing that would characterize such a parent is that he would not judge other parents simply based on their religious beliefs, because they know that it is the parenting beliefs that are really important. They would know that an atheist, a communist, a determinist, an existentialist, a materialist, a capitalist and every other sort of ideologue of every sort and not just those who are of the religious sort are just as likely to be oppressive in forcing their way of thinking on their children.


    So to demonstrate I shall examine my own parent and state what sort of thinking they forced upon me. This is the upbringing which I know and can criticize on the basis of personal knowledge. They were not religious in any usual sense. My father was an american marxist-leninist of a Moaist flavor but more of a social activist than an ideologue and eventually realized that the marxist-leninist ideologues had no interest in working for positive social change. My mother had no strong convictions other than what they both had. Both graduated in psychology and both were strong liberals. But even in support of psychological world view my mother had bad experiences with people in the practice of psychology to counter balance this. So the only thinking that was really unopposed was their liberal ideology which impressed upon me the unreflective attitude that conservatives were just plain stupid.

    The curious consequences of this up-bringing was that it took me a long time to realize certain things, one of which was that there really are profound differences between men and women. Another was that racism really wasn't based on an idiocy that somehow attached too much significance to a person's color but was really far more derived from cultural and behavioral differences that were at the roots of people's judgments about right and wrong. As far as politics is concerned I swung to the far right when began to discover some of the merits of conservative political thought before swinging back to more of a moderate point of view. But probably the worst ingrained attitude that this upbringing probably instilled in me is a value system that measures humanity by a yardstick of intellegence and education and a tendency to think that those who don't agree with me are stupid and uneducated. This is something I still fight against but I fear that this attitude still oozes from the way that I express myself in many ways.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Well, I don't believe Q exists! He's the forum god and all. It's only right that I give each "God" his or her own non existence. Can't very well be athiest if I should allow a forum god to exist, now can I?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pavlos, you do need to read the posts you are responding to before you blindly write your tripe.

    As I explained before, if someone wished to claim the sun does not exist, the burden of proof would be on that person to prove it does not exist, it would not be my burden to prove the sun exists. As I explained to you in the first place, the burden of proof is on the person whose claim goes against the grain in trying to deviate from the norm or from generally accepted truths.

    If you can't understand that and accept this, there is no sense even discussing this or any other topic with you.

    Pavlos claimed:

    You however are claiming X exists but provide no evidence to support it.
    I am not sure what "X" you think I claimed to exist. I think I said that if a person refuses to accept as evidence that which the proponent of an issue presents, then the person will never accept that which the evidence purports to show.

    Your contention that there is no evidence of God merely means that no matter what evidence you have been exposed to, you have rejected it as evidence. Those of us who believe in God do not do so out of thin air, as non-believers would like to think. Just because you folks to not accept as evidence the things we accept, does not mean they lack significance and meaning to us. My point there was not to attempt to prove or claim God exists, but to show how one's view of evidence affects their acceptance or rejection of that which the evidence purports to show.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Pavlos, you do need to read the posts you are responding to before you blindly write your tripe.

    As I explained before, if someone wished to claim the sun does not exist, the burden of proof would be on that person to prove it does not exist,
    This is where you err, as I've explained in a much earlier post, It is nonsensical to demand/claim proof of non-existence.
    So nobody in there right mind would claim the sun did not exist as that is a Negative proof fallacy, it is only your own wishful thinking that makes you believe a negative proof works, it does not.
    Only the one making the affirmative claim has the burden of proof.
    Again It is nonsensical to demand/claim proof of non-existence. It is that simple.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Your contention that there is no evidence of God merely means that no matter what evidence you have been exposed to, you have rejected it as evidence.
    No, it means there is no proof, unless of course you can surprise the world and produce some.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Those of us who believe in God do not do so out of thin air, as non-believers would like to think.
    Ah but you do, as you have no objective evidence, unless of course you can surprise the world by producing some. Which has not been done as yet, this is why all religion is based solely on faith. And we all know what religious faith means, (Without objective evidence)
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Just because you folks to not accept as evidence the things we accept, does not mean they lack significance and meaning to us. My point there was not to attempt to prove or claim God exists, but to show how one's view of evidence affects their acceptance or rejection of that which the evidence purports to show.
    But what objective evidence are you referring too. Subjective! is not evidence.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Wow, I should get a following and charge for membership.
    You already have a small following. 8)

    Your last post, I couldn't agree more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    I wish I had been indoctrinated by religious parents when i was younger. It would have made rebelling more fun!

    Instead i had parents who worshipped the T.V
    Yeah, once is fun, but dropping ten or twelve TVs out the window must be monotonous.

    :? What will Absum!'s children rebel against? Sometimes I think a very clever parent leaves an opening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    another aspect to religion. It is far more complicated than just being a religion. Most religions are cultural traditions deeply ingrained into the societies in which people live.

    ...the religious festivals, customs, different types of food and dress amongst many other dimensions which make up a religion.
    In Japan there are these wonderfully baroque Christian chapels, perhaps a tenth as common as the love hotels, which serve purely as ceremonial setting. People get dressed up and married in them. You could paint a crucifix atop the steps and many (anti-monotheist) Japanese would wittingly step dead on the Christ, on their way to the altar, where presides a possibly authentic :? priest I am told. Christianity is stripped for its rich culture.

    Shallow. But perhaps in the gathering of shallows we find deep? Robust anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Not only do the family share in these things, but usually the whole community.
    I would have loved that as a kid. Instead we spent Sundays being told to shut up because something was on the telly, and there was little family closeness or the feeling of sharing and being part of something, let alone feeling part of a community.
    There is a growing movement to engineer entirely new community traditions. I believe it's in the UK too. These things are inclusive because nobody has historic rights to them. Actually in my neighbourhood the largest events - by far - are such. The Lantern Festival and The Parade of Lost Souls. They're kinda inspired by some other festivals, but the aim is multicultural. For example no language is used at Lantern Festival. Obviously Lost Souls carries strong spiritual theme. A friend of mine set up a shrine for her deceased mom and literally thousands of strangers plus most of her friends were lighting and re-lighting candles for her mom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Pong have you recently been reading a lot of Dawkins?.....you are meme-ing all over the place!
    No I prejudge Richard Dawkins is to Christianity what Noam Chomsky is to America. So I've censored that messiah since Selfish Gene. Better come up with my own damning conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    the curse of postmodern thinking.
    Some day you've got to tell us what you mean by "postmodern".

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am not sure what "X" you think I claimed...
    Let's be sure it had nothing to do with the topic. Hey did you notice I asked you a question some pages back?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    the belief that children need to make up their own mind
    I'm a bit cynical here. According to my mother, her (boomer) generation of parents deliberately raised children (me) with what they now regret as a social experiment, that was a "let them discover for themselves" or "don't interfere" approach. She's talked to other parents of her generation about the results, and the consensus is negative. I was born in '71, and I have to admit my generation was a lost cause, morally hollow. When I compare to "kids these days" I'm impressed!

    I think what you're promoting is a smorgasbord, and I agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    My father was an american marxist-leninist of a Moaist flavor
    Funny, mine too (but Canadian, and "working class" as in free beer at the union hall).

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    probably the worst ingrained attitude that this upbringing probably instilled in me
    [presumptuous]Oh, I think the worst in your case is second-guessing yourself.[/presumptuous]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Pong i say to my son..........

    Come on lets rebel. Lets make some chaos. Lets run riot. Lets do some anarchy. Spray our hair green. Join some protest groups. Picket our council. Antagonise some despots. Play loud drum and base etc etc etc


    What do i get?

    "Shhhh mum, I'm trying to read!"

    What the hell is wrong with these kids today?
    What they need is some God in their lives to move their spirits instead of bladdy Harry Potter!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pong said to me:

    Hey did you notice I asked you a question some pages back?
    Was it this one?

    So, Daytonturner, how do you feel about inoculating children with the concepts of meme & delusion prior to introducing beliefs (e.g. God/no-God)? Notice my son's book picks betray what you might call "post modernism" in that he digs the notion truth is fickle and subjective. Obviously he now digests "facts" with a caveat. Is it fair to give children that perspective, through kindergarten lessons for example?
    To be honest with you I am not sure what you mean by "inoculating children with the concepts of meme & delusion."

    Meme, of course, is a term coined by Richard Dawkins which is probably almost synonymous with indoctination. So, I suppose it depends on what memes you are instilling as to whether you feel it would be appropriate.

    I would think that children learn different things and at different paces, depending on how they are genetically wired. My daughter, for example, understood abstract ideas and concepts at a very early age. I am not sure my son ever has. And they are both adults now.

    An article upon which I have relied as a good description of post-modernism can be found at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682

    If you have the time and wherewithal to read that article, you will see plenty of examples of post-modern thinking represented by people who post on this forum.

    Please note, that post-modernism is not necessarily always negative. Post modernism is sort of like thinking outside the box but it takes on negative aspects when people forget what was in the box or never return to the basics that were in the box.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner


    Meme, of course, is a term coined by Richard Dawkins which is probably almost synonymous with indoctination.
    Nope, meme comes from the Greek word, mimeme, meaning to 'imitate something.'
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Again, (Q) displays his ignorance for all to see.

    Although he is correct that meme comes from the Greek, in the sense that I took Pong to be using it, Wiktionary says:
    Etymology

    Coined by Richard Dawkins, 1976 in the book, The Selfish Gene. Modelled after gene, possibly influenced by mimic and memory or from Greek μίμημα (imitation, copy).
    While there may be other uses of the word, this is the only sense in which it is commonly used in English. I should think a huge Dawkinsite would know that.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am not sure what you mean by "inoculating children with the concepts of meme & delusion."

    Meme, of course, is a term coined by Richard Dawkins which is probably almost synonymous with indoctination.
    Close enough for this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So, I suppose it depends on what memes you are instilling as to whether you feel it would be appropriate.
    No, what I meant was more along the lines of teaching critical thinking, irrespective of beliefs, which might come later. Kinda like teaching study habits at the beginning of a school year.

    So, for example, my son reads this optical illusion book and learns that often people see what they like to see. He learns that sometimes he can see one picture or the other, but not both pictures simultaneously. And even some he just "doesn't get", though others do. He learns to suspend belief. Now, if shown the miraculous though blurry image of Jesus on a tortilla, what's he gonna think of it?

    He'll look to who is giving evidence and ask, "Why does this person see that?" He may even wonder why he himself sees that. Clearly he's become skeptical, and resistant to religion as well as "strong atheism". He's grown savvy to the nature of belief itself, before meeting the Big Beliefs.

    I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. See how some pictures resolve one way, valid, or another way, also valid. I believe that following any path is generally more fruitful than stopping at a crossroads and pursuing no further 'cause we lack proof to go on. Personally, I found agnosticism morally, spiritually, and intellectually useless. It is a barren position.

    So on one hand I want children thinking critically, but on the other I want them leaping where they can't look i.e. exercising faith. IMO they are too young to understand that dilemma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •