Should children be exposed to the "cold hard facts of real truth" (atheism) at a very young age?

[Manco]

So we start by asking the question-"Is there or Is there not a creator?"

Not really. One question I could imagine that should come earlier: "Is there or is there not a creation?"

[The High King of Ireland]

I beleive that religion is a form of catch-22, can't be irrefutably proved or disproved. Personally I see myself as an Agnostic. I beleive that religion is good in that it can instill morals in people from a young age. What I think is that before humanity casts off religion, we should either find a way to update its teaching in line with the modern world so as to lessen the frictions that die hard beleivers can cause. (some parts of the bible are obviously outdated). If not modernise religion then find another motivation for good behaviour/moral purity.I have no problem with people beleiving in religions, as long as they do not attempt to cram it down the throats of others without showing them the alternatives.

[Tankbuster]

But the people of the time certainly had the evidence. So often when they were preaching about Jesus someone could easily have stood up and said that they saw the body in the tomb and it would stop this nonsense so to speak.

No it wouldn't. And that's assuming a physical resurrection was part of the earliest strata of Christian belief anyway, which we have good reason to think that it wasn't (Paul doesn't seem to be talking about a physical resurrection, and he certainly doesn't mention the empty tomb or anything like that).

But even if the very first Christians did believe this (and again, I would argue that they didn't), the idea that apocalyptic cults would be stopped by facts is at odds with reality.
Take the recent example of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was regarded as the Messiah until his death in New York in 1994. Many of his followers continue to believe he will return as the Messiah, saying that he didn’t die and was simply mystically “hidden” or that he will rise again. Sound familiar?
These people can be shown medical records, a death certificate, TV footage of him being taken to hospital, his death being declared and his funeral and even him being taken to his grave. Yet they still believe.

The idea that people in the 21st century can be this defiant of reality, but superstitious First Century Jews would be swayed by someone saying that they saw Jesus' body, is absurd.

The writers of the NT were either eyewitnesses of the events, or had access to these eyewitnesses.

None of the writers of the NT were eye-witnesses of the events they narrate, and there's good reason to believe that they didn't have access to eye-witnesses either (except by oral tradition, and except for Paul).
The fact that the Gospel of Mark is the main inspiration of the subsequent gospels, for instance, speaks volumes.

I do love the premise of this whole thread. What are atheists going on about truth anyway. If we are just a result of random sequences, then how are they to know what is true, since basically there really is no truth, just impulses and instinct.

If the universe is governed by an all-powerful dictator against who there is no appeal and your senses and cognitive processes were given to you by him, how are you to know that you're not just seeing whatever the hell he wants you to see?
See how easy I turned that stupid question around?

Fyi, our senses evolved for millions of years to enable us to understand the world and figure out what is true. That's why we have the ability to understand the world -to a point.

[Vaðarholmr]

Yes
I hope my children are never going to belive in a religion anyway. There are no need for it.

[Mangalore]

My mother was summoned to our kindergarden twice.

Once because she told us that our neighbor is actually the guy playing Nicolaus.

The second time because my sister claimed that she had three grandmothers.

So she had to explain our dear Catholic kindergarden teachers that a) she won't lie to us when we want to know something and b) that sometimes marriages don't last forever like they seemingly do in bavaria and because the matters of stepmothers/second grade aunts etc. are a little difficult she thought it sufficied to introduce her grandfather's second wife as another grandmother.


How is atheism a cold hard fact? Kids have fantasy. You don't need God to have them feel warm and fuzzy, they mainly pick up on what crap you believe anyway.

[Helm]

How is atheism a cold hard fact?

I suppose it isn't but its seen to be the default status if you want to believe the cold hard facts we know and nothing else.

[Lord William]

i fail to see the good in atheism, having people running around without a sense of morality judging their actions only through logic and reason which would be great, assuming that all are logical being but the fact is we arnt we are a race that runs on our emotions not our ability to reason

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

i fail to see the good in atheism, having people running around without a sense of morality judging their actions only through logic and reason which would be great, assuming that all are logical being but the fact is we arnt we are a race that runs on our emotions not our ability to reason

I fail to see the good in religion, having people running around without a sense of morality, only doing good so they are rewarded with heaven, and not punished with hell. We are a race which runs on our emotions, not on a lack of ability to reason.

[Lord William]

I fail to see the good in religion, having people running around without a sense of morality, only doing good so they are rewarded with heaven, and not punished with hell. We are a race which runs on our emotions, not on a lack of ability to reason.

Your argument is flawed, seeing as religion is considered the basis of all morality

ie: Ten Commandments, etc


Humanity even if religion is false needs a guiding hand to teach them right from wrong

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Your argument is flawed, seeing as religion is considered the basis of all morality

ie: Ten Commandments, etc

Humanity even if religion is false needs a guiding hand to teach them right from wrong

And you're argument is flawed because Bible is not the only and first of legal codes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nt_legal_codes

For a society to function there must be rules. But they need not be religious. In fact, trying to follow all the religious rules in todays world would land you in jail. Where you should be.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Your argument is flawed, seeing as religion is considered the basis of all morality

ie: Ten Commandments, etc


Humanity even if religion is false needs a guiding hand to teach them right from wrong

You theists cherry-pick what you want from your scriptures, ignoring whatever doesn't suit your purpose. There's plenty of glorified actions in holy texts that are hardly the basis of morality.

I do believe the correct term you're looking for, though, is ethics. The ten commandments are an "agreement", in which one side abides by rules in exchange for residence. Morals have nothing to do with acting in one's best interests. Perhaps you can prove that the seed of human morality is religion?

Humanity is above a guiding hand (maybe except for Adam Smith's "invisible hand").

[Tankbuster]

i fail to see the good in atheism, having people running around without a sense of morality judging their actions only through logic and reason which would be great, assuming that all are logical being but the fact is we arnt we are a race that runs on our emotions not our ability to reason

The problem is that the God you propose to fix this problem, doesn't exist. So what you actually propose is people running around who think they have celestial permission for what they think.

We can fantasize how great it would be for there to be someone to tell us what is right and wrong, but the fact of the matter is that we've always been alone in that struggle.
What's dangerous is for people to actually be alone, but think they're not. Then they forget what morality is really about, and they relinquish their attempts at being rational altogether - while listening to the "God" that is the magnification and deification of their own attitude.

If people recognised that we are alone on this planet, and that no one will come to save us from ourselves, perhaps people would be more concerned about the well-being of their fellow human beings. It certainly hasn't been tried yet.

[Helm]

i fail to see the good in atheism, having people running around without a sense of morality judging their actions only through logic and reason which would be great, assuming that all are logical being but the fact is we arnt we are a race that runs on our emotions not our ability to reason

It seems to me that peoples standards morality improved once they started to become less religious and more rational. Though I'm not sure what objective standards I'm measuring them against. But we can assume for instance that slavery is has always been wrong and not just unfashionable at the current moment. Though it wasn't religion that banned slavery it came in with secularisation. Other improvements include equal rights for women, a reduction in racism and more recently homophobia which Christianity is still plagued by. Again I'm not sure what standards I'm measuring morality against but they're not Bible standards.

[Nietzsche]

It's never too young to indoctrinate. If we can completely remove morality and religion from all child instruction we could raise the next generation of over-persons. Think of how easy it would be to "get things done" when humanity is completely removed from decision-making.

[Helm]

It's never too young to indoctrinate. If we can completely remove morality and religion from all child instruction we could raise the next generation of over-persons. Think of how easy it would be to "get things done" when humanity is completely removed from decision-making.

You could raise a whole generation of supermen each with the will to power.

[Helm]

Dawkins had a bit of a rough time trying to get his true facts of reality delivered to children with this book.



"Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and Joesph Stalin they all have one thing in common. They don't believe in God."



Asking Dawkins if he's an atheist, its like asking the Pope if he's Catholic.

[Mangalore]

Dawkins had a bit of a rough time trying to get his true facts of reality delivered to children with this book.



"Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and Joesph Stalin they all have one thing in common. They don't believe in God."

...

Wow, O'Reilly is more obnoxious than ever in that piece. Was he told he had to be an all out ass or be fired?
The fun part about the "Thou shalt not kill" is that it obviously only meant other Israelites because God told them quite explicitly to annihilate everyone else. The old testament is really a trying to explain how that God supposedly enables positive behaviour. Child sacrifice, mass murder, looting, pillaging, it's all in there and the only supposedly redeeming factor is supposed to be that God likes to yank our chains here and there... but what makes this about this kind of God and his commandments?


The New Testament is kind of better, but overall all religion only truly shines if you remove all the religious hogwash and distill it to the ethical core of what is actually wanted. But why would you need religion then?

[Helm]

The New Testament is kind of better, but overall all religion only truly shines if you remove all the religious hogwash and distill it to the ethical core of what is actually wanted. But why would you need religion then?

I suppose if you remove the religious element then the morality won't have an objective value it would just be a matter of opinion. But its something philosophers would be concerned with not an eveyday life thing.

Give the children room to choose. In other words, don't impose religion on them, but don't impose atheism either. Let them grow up with such ideas available to them, and over time they will make the right decision for them. Of course if the family is very religious in nature, it's hard to accomplish this.

What Dawkins seems to have in mind is to teach them the science and teach them to be skeptical of supernatural claims not supported by science. And when they're old enough they will become atheists if they're sensible.

[chriscase]

Helm. The premise of the thread is silly. Children already know the facts because they are simple reality. It takes lifetime of indoctrination, artifice, and fantasy to obfuscate what is stupidly obvious to a child. The question then is whether such indoctrination should be permitted.

[Helm]

Children already know the facts because they are simple reality.

They only know what adults tell them. I don't think anyone is born knowing all the true facts of reality our Lord Jesus aside. Though if that story had been true we would have a different set of facts of truth to the ones we currently have now.