When atheism is no longer atheism.

[Blaze86420]

Yes, it would be. Thankfully nobody here proposed such a thing, praise be to Amun.

Yes, that would be the case if you failed to read any of the posts that aren't mine.

Thats what you should have been answering.

I think everybody is aware of the vast differences between raising your child to be a devout Christian and teaching your child some insane ideology, something like "leftists should be massacred and the government violently overthrown". Of course, some atheists would claim that religions are insane ideologies and should be suppressed, which brings us back to the topic of militant atheism.

Bigots and neo-nazis are allowed to raise children, are people going to make the argument that the religiously devout shouldn't? And why exactly should children not be brought up with religion? What happens if the tables are turned; would you be okay with the state restricting atheism? And why restrict this to spirituality, the state should also determine what political views can or can't be passed on to your children, right?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

No true scotsman.

I don't see why I shouldn't attack thosr trying to perpetuate their religion. Sure, you can believe whatever you want, but you can't base legislation on something utterly without evidence, and you have no right to force your beliefs on others.

[Denny Crane!]

No I'm fine with state activities being what they are but its no good saying that we don't interfere because we do. And there is a great deal of difference between saying that raising a child to be religious and by that I mean outright indoctrination or outright force and raising a child to understand religion, particularly your own and giving him a choice to follow it free from consequence should he decline. I would consider the first a form of abuse, though not one I would expect the state to intervene on.

I've seen the ban religion comment a few times but not from anyone I would consider to be an adult, just random internet trolling. I'm fine decrying fanatics but most people seem to think there are an awful lot more atheist militants than I've ever come across and I'd be interested to know if there are hordes of them out there clamouring for your own demise and I've somehow missed it.

[sumskilz]

and you have no right to force your beliefs on others.

This is a belief

[Himster]

When you are a "atheist" but you have a dogmatic system of beliefs, want to enforce those beliefs on others, want to enact laws to enforce the propagation of your beliefs, and want to make your beliefs a state "religion" it most certainly ceases to be atheism.

In one sense this is accurate, you can't enforce atheism in the same way you can't enforce amorality, both of the concepts describe a lack of something, the non-existence of a concept really.
But in another sense, there are atheistic religions/ideologies such as buddhism and stalinism that have doctrines, people who follow these don't stop being atheists because they start to believe in crazy mumbo-jumbo, simply by not being theists they remain atheists, despite any nonsense they replace god/gods with.

Atheism is not a synonym for non-religion.

[Matthias]

I think everybody is aware of the vast differences between raising your child to be a devout Christian and teaching your child some insane ideology,

Well, God does command us to kill people who cut their beards, or working on the Sabbath, or.... Oh, and Islam says the penalty for dropping the Islamic faith? Death. Yes, religion is an insane ideology, it has just been watered down (somewhat) over time in order to survive, but its insane roots are there for everyone to read right in the Bible. Actually, nothing insane about it, just good ol' culture from 2,000 years ago.

Bigots and neo-nazis are allowed to raise children,

And the childhood indoctrination they perpetrate on their children is horribly damaging to the child and to society as well. It's child abuse. And it's not very different from religion, especially religion creates quite a few bigots all on its own.

are people going to make the argument that the religiously devout shouldn't?

I'll make the argument religiously devout people shouldn't indoctrinate their children, you know, like telling them they'll go to hell and burn for eternity if they don't believe what mommy and daddy do. Course, that happens all the time and nobody bats an eye.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

Nobody should indoctrinate children in anything, it's wrong to do.

And why exactly should children not be brought up with religion?

Because children do not have the capacity to critically think and many religions actually discourage it anyways. They're vulnerable, they're much more gullible at that age to being told what to believe by their superiors, and being told not to question it. I mean, it makes sense why religions want them brought up in it, it's how they get 99% of their adherents. Religion can be severely damaging to people who believe it, considering some of the hateful, bigoted beliefs it perpetuates, based on complete ignorance.

What happens if the tables are turned; would you be okay with the state restricting atheism? And why restrict this to spirituality, the state should also determine what political views can or can't be passed on to your children, right?

I never said the state should (or would) get involved, just that it's wrong to indoctrinate children in anything, but religion is the most common and widely accepted form of child indoctrination, but it should be seen for what it is, chlld abuse. If I indoctrinated my child in all my personal beliefs and told them not to question anything and told them they would face eternal hellfire for even questioning those beliefs, that would not be morally right. It would be child abuse.

I just like pointing out that what many people in the developed world want to try and think of as "tradition" is just child abuse. More and more people are seeing it for what it is though. The developing world still has much more hardcore childhood indoctrination going on, of course, like the good ol' days. They're good constant reminders of what it's all about.

I'd be embarassed if I were religious that almost all believers got that way through childhood indoctrination, doesn't say much about the persuasiveness of the ideas or the moral authority of the church.

[Blau&Gruen]

I think the underlying question of thread is a critical and therefore a good one.

[basics]

In answer to the question and according to God's word to believe there is a God is just as bad as believing that there isn't since knowing Him is more important than belief alone. In other words to alleviate the wrath of God against fallen man one must be born again and that by the Spirit of God otherwise all remain in a fallen state.

To move one's position from atheism to say agnostacy doesn't matter one hoot because the carnal position remains the same. Being anything other than atheist yet still not born again is only a worldly position shifted by a fallen creature but it changes nothing in the eyes of God. Revelation is the key and that comes from the power of God to save, which is the written word.

[PikeStance]

Indoctrination of children; it's wrong.

Indoctrination

to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments
to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

Socialization

the process by which a human being beginning at infancy acquires the habits, beliefs, and accumulated knowledge of society through education and training for adult status

While there are examples where "indoctrination" of children by parents are practice and it effect can be life long and damaging, most parents (and society) actually engages in socialization of the young. If we are to have any meaningful discussion, it is necessary to present a more honest argument. I believe the vast majority of parents would agree that indoctrination would be wrong. Many believe they are just simply "socializing" their children to the values, mores and ethics help by society. My parents were Roman Catholic, they both taught catechism, and I attended catholic schools. Like most parents, they were not indoctrinating me into accepting a certain belief. I believe they were instilling in me a sense of ethics and morality. They were successful; although I have clearly evolved beyond their intent. Apart from parents, other agents of socialization are peers, government, teachers and other authoritative persons.

I think it is simply dishonest to argue that indoctrination is wrong as if that is the intent of any parent. I think we can all agree that it is wrong even parents who try to instill religious doctrine to their children.

---

[Matthias]

I think it is simply dishonest to argue that indoctrination is wrong as if that is the intent of any parent. I think we can all agree that it is wrong even parents who try to instill religious doctrine to their children.
---

I doubt many parents who are religoius see religious indoctrination as wrong, because they don't even realize it's indoctrination in most cases. That's the problem.

Parents who take their kids to church means their kids will be indoctrinated (that is, told a system of unproveable beliefs as a matter of fact and even told not to quesiton them, and indeed lack the ability to in most cases critically), so that even if the parents themselves aren't saying it, the church in many cases is.

Parents can educate their children on religion, and even on their own personal beliefs, but to educate someone you HAVE TO be honest with them. That means when your child asks you where people go when they die, you have to say you don't know, instead of to heaven. That's indoctrination otherwise. You can then say, well, I believe they go to heaven despite not knowing, and then you might get a whole lot of other more uncomfortable questions about your own irrational beliefs from your own child, but at least you are being honest. Most parents aren't who raise their kids religiously (because being honest exposes their own irrational beliefs). They're intellectually dishonest, they indoctrinate. They rarely tell their children to think critically about these beliefs. Kudos to the ones who do, they're doing it right. Let your child determine their own beliefs about unproveable, unproven things, you can still educate them on the world and on all values and tell them what you believe and why and what values/ideology you follow and why.

[PikeStance]

I doubt many parents who are religious see religious indoctrination as wrong, because they don't even realize it's indoctrination in most cases. That's the problem.

Parents who take their kids to church means their kids will be indoctrinated (that is, told a system of unprovable beliefs as a matter of fact and even told not to question them, and indeed lack the ability to in most cases critically), so that even if the parents themselves aren't saying it, the church in many cases is.

Parents can educate their children on religion, and even on their own personal beliefs, but to educate someone you HAVE TO be honest with them. That means when your child asks you where people go when they die, you have to say you don't know, instead of to heaven. That's indoctrination otherwise. You can then say, well, I believe they go to heaven despite not knowing, and then you might get a whole lot of other more uncomfortable questions about your own irrational beliefs from your own child, but at least you are being honest. Most parents aren't who raise their kids religiously (because being honest exposes their own irrational beliefs). They're intellectually dishonest, they indoctrinate. They rarely tell their children to think critically about these beliefs. Kudos to the ones who do, they're doing it right. Let your child determine their own beliefs about unprovable, unproven things, you can still educate them on the world and on all values and tell them what you believe and why and what values/ideology you follow and why.

What you are describing is socialization, not indoctrination. I am certain that parents who believe that when they die that they will go to heaven are being honest when they convey that to their children. The fact that you think that is not true doesn't mean they are being dishonest. I do not want to live in a society where someone else decides what is honest and dishonest whether or not I believe in what that truth is or not.

---

[Mangalore]

...

Bigots and neo-nazis are allowed to raise children, are people going to make the argument that the religiously devout shouldn't? And why exactly should children not be brought up with religion? What happens if the tables are turned; would you be okay with the state restricting atheism? And why restrict this to spirituality, the state should also determine what political views can or can't be passed on to your children, right?

The table being turned and agnostic atheism being banned simply doesn't align with understood realities which is why the state shouldn't restrict it. It's about allowing a free flow of accurate information, problem being belief systems that may obstruct that and in turn be a negative for the child. I have to admit I'm not a proponent of needing to allow the free flow of inaccurate information or the right for anyone to spread it. This does actually not mean that I must agree with the information, just that it cannot be provably false.

Teaching someone about the possibility of a God? I'm not a fan of this proposal since I consider it irrelevant but I have nothing against it.
Teaching someone about the certainty of a God? Well,... we know we don't have that kind of data. Much more problematic, particularly when it starts ignoring facts left and right to somehow make its doctrine stick.

So I'm probably more Frederique the Great than Voltaire though clearly not as kingly and hopefully with not as big a democratic deficit as the Prussian. I would even posit Voltaire was talking about diverging opinions, not about spreading false facts when defending free speech. He might have hoped on false facts being ridiculed and penalized by audience, I'm much less optimistic.

[Sar1n]

My problem is with faith being taught not as faith but as truth. As far as I am concerned, you can believe in whatever crazy stuff you desire, as long as you treat it just as faith. Don't go blowing up people, knocking on their doors or teaching your children to believe without question because of it, remember that it's all just in your head.

[Matthias]

What you are describing is socialization, not indoctrination. I am certain that parents who believe that when they die that they will go to heaven are being honest when they convey that to their children.

You misunderstand, they may believe it, but the have no proof, no knowledge to back it up. Only faith. Saying your beliefs are truths is a dangerous practice and harmful in many ways, and indoctrinating children in it is incredibly harmful. A lack of critical thinking is never something that should be taught as good.

The fact that you think that is not true doesn't mean they are being dishonest. I do not want to live in a society where someone else decides what is honest and dishonest whether or not I believe in what that truth is or not.

I never said someone else would decide. But you are currently living in a society where people decide for their children all the time what "truth" means. That's scary. Those parents should be called out and shamed by others for what they do. It's morally wrong. It's harmful. It's ignorant.

[Valden]

'Atheism' is something of a misnomer in my opinion. Literally all that is signified by this word is either the truth claim that God does not exist, or a psychological lack of belief in God. There is no grounds for a worldview or philosophy in this word, for as some users have pointed out, atheism is a lack of something, rather than a something. If you have an opinion on moral philosophy, you do not hold it as an atheist, you hold it as (e.g an utilitarian) a proponent of that particular philosophy. The meaning of the term atheism really has little relevance to many of the discussions it is applied to, instead, a group of fairly aggressive and propagandist anti-theists have taken the word 'atheist' to represent themselves.

[Denny Crane!]

'Atheism' is something of a misnomer in my opinion. Literally all that is signified by this word is either the truth claim that God does not exist, or a psychological lack of belief in God. There is no grounds for a worldview or philosophy in this word, for as some users have pointed out, atheism is a lack of something, rather than a something. If you have an opinion on moral philosophy, you do not hold it as an atheist, you hold it as (e.g an utilitarian) a proponent of that particular philosophy. The meaning of the term atheism really has little relevance to many of the discussions it is applied to, instead, a group of fairly aggressive and propagandist anti-theists have taken the word 'atheist' to represent themselves.

Spot on right up to the end there. Who is this group? Are they coherent and defined and operating out of a building or?

[Himster]

'Atheism' is something of a misnomer in my opinion. Literally all that is signified by this word is either the truth claim that God does not exist, or a psychological lack of belief in God. There is no grounds for a worldview or philosophy in this word, for as some users have pointed out, atheism is a lack of something, rather than a something. If you have an opinion on moral philosophy, you do not hold it as an atheist, you hold it as (e.g an utilitarian) a proponent of that particular philosophy. The meaning of the term atheism really has little relevance to many of the discussions it is applied to, instead,

Perfectly phrased.

a group of fairly aggressive and propagandist anti-theists have taken the word 'atheist' to represent themselves.

Well rather than "group" it would be more accurate to say number of groups and individuals.

[PikeStance]

...The meaning of the term atheism really has little relevance to many of the discussions it is applied to, instead, a group of fairly aggressive and propagandist anti-theists have taken the word 'atheist' to represent themselves.

...Well rather than "group" it would be more accurate to say number of groups and individuals.

Spot on right up to the end there. Who is this group? Are they coherent and defined and operating out of a building or?

Exactly,... I honestly feel like I have not agreed with any atheist/ irreligious person in the forum, including this guy



---

[Denny Crane!]

Exactly!

[Diocle]

In my not humble opinion a good atheist is a guy who think that:

god doesn't exist

...and until he continues to think that:

god doesn't exist

...he remains a good atheist, because he knows that:

god doesn't exist