Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

Who cannot endorse what Gene has written? I agree absolutely

'Abuse' is perhaps too strong a word. Indoctrinating a child into a faith is more like providing fattening foods and thus neglecting the child's proper nourishment . Actually those are child abuse but not as bad as violent abuse. Mutilating your baby son's or daughter's sex organs for non-medical reasons is violence against your baby. And this is done by Muslims and Jews but the state should stop parents using any violence at all against little children. Time enough for such mutilations when and if the child has reached an age when he or she can volunteer to be mutilated.

[Maldon007]

Gene didn't really answer the question of how, though. Teach your kid to think, first, then let them decide if there is a god or not later, sounds good but is a bit of a cop-out. As has been stated, religion is pervasive, in many locals kids WILL get the general idea that there is a god at the very least, and very early... As a parent, it will be on you to confirm or deny. As someone who strongly believes religion is detrimental to individuals & society, it would be a failure to allow such belief to take root.

[Jjpregler]

As someone who strongly believes religion is detrimental to individuals & society, it would be a failure to allow such belief to take root.

I completely agree with this. It seems in this conversation indoctrination was bashed so hard that some atheists feel the need to back off too and allow their child to freely choose? Why? Children need to be taught. Critical thinking is important, but at what age is a child able to actually think critically enough to make a decision that most adults are incapable of making the right choice.

The reason christians raise christian children is that they beleive it to be 100% truth and the results of their child not believing is detrimental to their future soul. If heaven and hell were real, it would be a great error to allow a child to freely choose without direction and teaching.

As atheists were are faced with a similar choice. We know the bible to be 100% false. We know religion is just the product of mythical memes of generations past. We now see the the evils religion has brought on society with clearer vision.

At one point in the dawn of my conversion, I felt that for some people belief in religion was harmless and even correct. I now know different. Even allowing a person who themselves will never commit evil in the name of religion to continue to believe without challenge is dangerous. Since they will eventually become part of a chain of continious beleivers among which an evil will transpire. They may not hate, but their attendance gives others more strength to hate.

Therefore if allowing any to beleive may be evil, must we not prevent our child in becoming evil? Heaven is not real, but allowing faith is hell on earth, and I will allow my child to become part of the hell for others.

[Ecurb]

As atheists were are faced with a similar choice. We know the bible to be 100% false. We know religion is just the product of mythical memes of generations past. We now see the the evils religion has brought on society with clearer vision. .

We do? We DON’T know that the Bible is 100% false – in fact it is reasonable to suppose that it is NOT. Nor do we know that “religion is just the product of mythic memes”. We don’t know for certain HOW Christianity developed. Since I think that Jjpregler is incorrect in making these unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) assertions, would it be reasonable of me to say that he is a child abuser if he repeats them to children? After all, Jj is making unconfirmed assertions just like the Christians are.

Jj continues:

Therefore if allowing any to beleive may be evil, must we not prevent our child in becoming evil? Heaven is not real, but allowing faith is hell on earth, and I will allow my child to become part of the hell for others.

No, we must NOT “prevent our child in (sic) becoming evil.” There is only one certain way of preventing evil in our children: it is what Shakespeare called “a sharp cure, but a sure one for all ills (i.e. “death”).” I assume Jj will agree with me that we should not kill our children to prevent them from becoming evil, and that there are many teaching methods we should refrain from using on our children. If we support freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, we cannot prevent our children from making their own decisions about a great many things. They can make either ignorant decisions (as, of course, they will if they learn nothing about religion) or informed decisions. Some might even think that “the truth will set you free”, but since that is a quote from John 8:32, those who do disagree with Jj, who thinks that statement is “100% false”.

[Bermudj]

We now see the the evils religion has brought on society with clearer vision.

I do not. I do know that evil is the emotions, not in religion.

[Maldon007]

We do? We DON’T know that the Bible is 100% false – in fact it is reasonable to suppose that it is NOT. Nor do we know that “religion is just the product of mythic memes”. We don’t know for certain HOW Christianity developed. Since I think that Jjpregler is incorrect in making these unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) assertions, would it be reasonable of me to say that he is a child abuser if he repeats them to children? After all, Jj is making unconfirmed assertions just like the Christians are.

So if you have, or had small children of your own, what do you teach them? God is real? Might be real? Is not real?

[Ecurb]

I have one son, now practically grown up. I live in Oregon, and nobody I know is religious (with one or two exceptions). So it was never a problem. My son never had a problem with Santa Claus, or Jesus or any religious stuff. He liked religious stories as a young boy, and he likes them now as a young man. I never felt the need to talk about whether they were “true” (except when he asked) – just like I never thought it necessary to talk endlessly about whether the novels I read to him were true. The suspension of disbelief that is necessary in reading a novel and inhabiting (for a while) that fictional world is also necessary for enjoying religious stories. It seemed to me (and still seems to me) that telling stories about Santa Claus and then going on and on about how Santa is just “made up” is unnecessary, and ruins the fun of the story – just like reading a child “The Jungle Books” and then talking about how Mowgli is “made up” is unnecessary and would ruin the fun of those stories.

I’ll grant that in some more religious areas of the country (or world) I might have had to confront the issue more directly – but it was never an issue for me or for him. Like me, he is now an atheist (when he thinks about it) – but unlike some people on this board, he isn’t hostile or bitter toward religion.

When, as a young boy, he asked if the story was "real" (which he did only on rare occasions), I'd say, "Oh, I don't really know and I don't think it's that important. It's a good story whether it really happened or not."

[Maldon007]

You're no fun, too sensible.

[Gene16180]

It seemed to me (and still seems to me) that telling stories about Santa Claus and then going on and on about how Santa is just “made up” is unnecessary, and ruins the fun of the story..."

I'm not sure how well this analogy works. After all there is no divinely inspired doctrine of Santa Claus which is taught to children in special schools as an all-inclusive account of life and the universe. Morality is not made contingent upon claims such as “Mrs. Claus is a virgin and Rudolph died for our sins”. Children are not taught that to be a good person they must believe in Santa Claus so that when they die they can spend eternity playing in Santa's workshop. Finally, if your son as a young man still believed in Santa Claus I think you would find it more then slightly disturbing.

[Jjpregler]

We do? We DON’T know that the Bible is 100% false – in fact it is reasonable to suppose that it is NOT. Nor do we know that “religion is just the product of mythic memes”. We don’t know for certain HOW Christianity developed. Since I think that Jjpregler is incorrect in making these unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) assertions, would it be reasonable of me to say that he is a child abuser if he repeats them to children? After all, Jj is making unconfirmed assertions just like the Christians are.

Jj continues:



No, we must NOT “prevent our child in (sic) becoming evil.” There is only one certain way of preventing evil in our children: it is what Shakespeare called “a sharp cure, but a sure one for all ills (i.e. “death”).” I assume Jj will agree with me that we should not kill our children to prevent them from becoming evil, and that there are many teaching methods we should refrain from using on our children. If we support freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, we cannot prevent our children from making their own decisions about a great many things. They can make either ignorant decisions (as, of course, they will if they learn nothing about religion) or informed decisions. Some might even think that “the truth will set you free”, but since that is a quote from John 8:32, those who do disagree with Jj, who thinks that statement is “100% false”.

It is simple, if I asked sa christian about Hercules and Zeus they would say they are myth. If I ask about Osiris, Baal and Ishtar they would call them myth. But when I show the memical progress of those myths into the Jewish Religion and eventually the Christian religion, they will probably have some canned apologetics answer as to why every other god in history is only a myth (and all of the stories are similar and predate the christian version by about 1000 years or more) but Jesus is the real thing. His virgin birth and resurrection are different from Osiris because ... the flood story in Genesis is different from the Epic of Gilgamesh because ... Samson is different from the other sun god strong man who was betrayed by a woman he loves by the name of Herakles because ...

So yes, I was a theologian. I studied in bible college and taught in a church. Then I returned to college for a law degree and I studied comparative myth thereafter. I saw the links. I came to the conclusion that if Zeus is myth and we know it is myth, then the Jewish copies of those myths can just as easily be disregarded as myth and we can know with the same certainty that we know that Zues is mythological.

Now since I know that religion is myth and that many will attempt to pass it off on my son as truth, I have a duty to educate him as a parent. If these were just stories and would be persented to him as stories, I would not need to take those steps. There is no one that is going to read to him about Mount Olympus and tell him that Zeus is real.

And just becasue Shakespeare opined that the only way we have to prevent our children from being evil is death, does not make it true, therefore the analogy that I am advocating killing our children is ridiculous. That would mean then that you are evil by extension, that I am evil and every other single person alive who grew to adulthood is evil.

[Maldon007]

And just becasue Shakespeare opined that the only way we have to prevent our children from being evil is death, does not make it true, therefore the analogy that I am advocating killing our children is ridiculous. That would mean then that you are evil by extension, that I am evil and every other single person alive who grew to adulthood is evil.

Not so, just because one action may prevent a given occurrence, doesn't mean it has to occur without the action. Puting my dog inside a steel box will certainly keep him from running out of the yard, but left in the yard, without the box, he still may not run out.

[Ecurb]

It is simple, if I asked sa christian about Hercules and Zeus they would say they are myth. If I ask about Osiris, Baal and Ishtar they would call them myth. But when I show the memical progress of those myths into the Jewish Religion and eventually the Christian religion, they will probably have some canned apologetics answer as to why every other god in history is only a myth (and all of the stories are similar and predate the christian version by about 1000 years or more) but Jesus is the real thing. His virgin birth and resurrection are different from Osiris because ... the flood story in Genesis is different from the Epic of Gilgamesh because ... Samson is different from the other sun god strong man who was betrayed by a woman he loves by the name of Herakles because ...

So yes, I was a theologian. I studied in bible college and taught in a church. Then I returned to college for a law degree and I studied comparative myth thereafter. I saw the links. I came to the conclusion that if Zeus is myth and we know it is myth, then the Jewish copies of those myths can just as easily be disregarded as myth and we can know with the same certainty that we know that Zues is mythological.

Now since I know that religion is myth and that many will attempt to pass it off on my son as truth, I have a duty to educate him as a parent. If these were just stories and would be persented to him as stories, I would not need to take those steps. There is no one that is going to read to him about Mount Olympus and tell him that Zeus is real.

And just becasue Shakespeare opined that the only way we have to prevent our children from being evil is death, does not make it true, therefore the analogy that I am advocating killing our children is ridiculous. That would mean then that you are evil by extension, that I am evil and every other single person alive who grew to adulthood is evil.

This is exactly the kind of literal-minded mumbo-jumbo that I’m glad I avoided preaching to my son. First of all, like Jj, I studied “myth” in grad school. I was an Anthropology student, and (because I’ve always loved literature) comparative mythology was my interest. Unlike Jj, however, I don’t use the word “myth” in a pejorative manner. Most preliterate people don’t distinguish between “myth” and “history”. “Myth” is one of my favorite forms of literature. It’s more fun to read than our modern “history” – heck, it’s better than “fiction”, most of the time (it’s also different from “fiction” – they are distinct literary forms). Also, I hear people say, "The Bible is myth" -- but careful students of literature would not agree, since the Bible includes Proverbs, Poems, Theology (the letters of Paul) and other forms of literature in addition to mythological histories.

So, yes, I know that Zeus is a “myth” (or, at least, stories about him are "myths") – but far from thinking that makes it worthless to learn about Zeus, I think it makes it MORE important to understand Zeus. Far from thinking that because Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we need not care about Jesus, I think the fact that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead makes it MORE important to understand Jesus. Jesus has had more influence on human history than Alexander the Great, Napoleon and Winston Churchill put together – whether He existed or not. Fundamentalists think that the literal truth of every word in the Bible is of prime importance – do educated atheists really want to remain at their level? Don’t we have better things to think about than "Did Jesus really exist" when we study the Bible?

I blew it on the Shakespeare quote, by the way. I looked it up, and it’s attributed to Sir Walter Raleigh, feeling the axe that was soon to behead him. “It’s a sharp remedy, but a sure one for all ills,” he said.

By the way, Jj says, “religion is myth.” This is clearly untrue. “Religion” includes ritual, poetry (the psalms), music, meditation, social hierarchies, theology, political structures and a great many other facets that I forget. “Myth is religion,” is a reasonable statement – “religion is myth” is not. This is another tendency of the Fundamentalists – they emphasize myth over the other aspects of religion. However, we need not take our own approach to looking at religion from them (I hope).

[Jjpregler]

Ok, religion is based on mythology. Clearer?

I have never said I dislike mythology. I love Greek Mythology, but my turning point in life is when i realized that mythology was more than just stories at one point in history. People actually built temples to Zeus. It was religion at one time before it was relegated to myth. My purpose is to relegate the stories of Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Jesus and etc. to mythology where they actually belong. If you want to consider the poetics as being outside the myth, then so be it.

And never have I ever stated that one should not read mythology. I think you are reading into my statements. One should defnitely read Mythology. Illiad and Oddesey should be read by everyone. Beowulf. Even the bible if being read as literature.

And also I never stated what i teach my son. I don't get where you read that. I stated why I teach my son. So you think it would be better to leave your children untrained and naive and send them out into the world and just hope they don't get decieved. Sounds like playing bingo with your child's mental development to me. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. I'd rather give my child sound foundation upon which he can analyze and perform critical thought processes instead of setting him up to be a lemming.

-- Updated July 17th, 2012, 2:47 am to add the following --

The main problem I see with your view is that you do not beleive that there is any difference whatsoever in the bible and the Illiad. The bible is no different than Hamlet. But this is wrong. The bible is different from literature, in that millions of people believe this story to be the absolute truth and are trying to convince everyone else the same.

No one beleives that Osiris was born of a virgin, but millions beleive that of Jesus. No one beleives that Osiris was resurrected to judge the dead, but millions believe that about Jesus. No one believes Upnapishtim was warned by the god Ea to build a boat for his family to be spared in the coming flod of judgment on humanity, but millions believe Yahweh warned Noah and saved his family.

Do you not see and understand the difference. Because of our culture's fascination and holding religion up on a pedestal, they are not equal. Because of our culture's reaction to the literature, they cannot be treated as equals.

[Belinda]

Ecurb wrote:

When, as a young boy, he asked if the story was "real" (which he did only on rare occasions), I'd say, "Oh, I don't really know and I don't think it's that important. It's a good story whether it really happened or not."

Is this true of the story of Osiris too? May we not interpret any story according to what truths it can portray for us? Are there certain stories that are intrinsically immoral and should not be inflicted upon the young who may be harmed by them? I believe that there are such. One such story frequently told to the young today is that The Bible is historically true as a whole or in parts . While accomplished historians can and do glean historical evidence from The Bible, no child is an accomplished historian, and therefore it is wrong to tell a child that the Bible stories are real when they are not historically true.

[Misty]

All information is relative. What if a parent teaches their children about nutrition and a child is told peanuts are a healthy food. The child partakes of peanuts, has an allergic reaction and dies. Was the parent abusive?

When I was younger I had a comb that I really liked. A friend asked me to style her hair so I obliged. While combing her hair with my prized comb, she commented about the comb so I began to sing it's praises about what an old but strong, reliable comb it was and how much I liked it. No sooner had the words passed my lips the comb snapped in half. I learned that no matter what I thought about something, it could change in an instant.

Religion per se is not abusive, but intention of application can be. I can say to my child "Jesus loves you", but like anything a parent teaches a child, application of knowledge an beliefs can produce different receptions. The same can be true of teaching a child there is no God.