how's promoting atheism to children any worse than promoting Christianity to kids? Either way you're putting your own ideas into the head of somebody incapable of forming their own ideas.

i disagree, no one is "born" into a religion, they start out atheist (no knowledge or belief in god) they have to be indoctrinated into religion.

Athiesm is an active belief that there is no God. You can't really believe one way or the other until you know of both.

Your born into nothing. Not knowing is different then knowing naught.

Athiesm is not a lack of religious beliefs, it is the belief that there is no such thing as a supreme being. Thus you have to understand the concept of God or a supreme being before you can be athiest, and you have to understand the idea of a supreme being not existing before you can be religious. Babies are born with knowledge of neither idea, thus, they can neither be athiest or religious until they are taught the concepts.

thanks for the specifics JAPR, you are of course, correct. I should have stated my position differently.

If one does not know of "any" type of god and therefore has no belief in a "god" then that person would be absent of any theistic belief.

there are 2 types of atheism. from wikipedia...

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist".

Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard. Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others. Historically, the terms negative and positive atheism have been used to denote this distinction. Within negative or weak atheism, philosopher Anthony Kenny distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim "God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider all God-talk to be meaningless.[1]

Since many self-described agnostics specifically distinguish their stance from that of atheists, yet would also fit the general definition of "weak atheism," the validity of this categorisation is disputed. Another problem is whether "strong" atheists must consider themselves able to prove authoritatively that a god does not exist, or rather, if they must only disbelieve in such a god in order to qualify. Prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins avoid the strong/weak distinction. In The God Delusion Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for "I know there is no god". He categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "Strong Atheist".[2]

JAPR, here is where I disagree with you (and the description above of atheist) and why I don't think it fits into your explanation.

I define being an atheist as "not believing the "evidence" that has been presented to me about "god(s)".

"god(s) do not exist, as per the evidence provided to me"

No one had to "teach" me how to be an atheist. So just because I do not believe what different religions have presented to me, I am labeled an atheist. While we all start off with no theistic beliefs, As rottenseed so aptly (and eloquently) pointed out "Not knowing is different then knowing naught." But therin lies a blurred line.

imagine a kid. "not knowing" of any theistic thoughts.(how we start)

then someone approaches the kid with the idea of the trinity god. now just because that kid does not buy into their "stories and beliefs", the kid is labeled an Atheist (knowing naught). (how you described in your first post)

But that same religious person can be confronted by 1 million other religions and come to the same conclusion (not believing in the evidence the "other" religions present).

so what is the word for that ? as far as I knwo there is none.

But I assert it is a form of atheism, (religous folks get out of that label cause they always use "god" in a grand sense (only to their own religion), never in a specific sense, as in "why yes, I believe in the god of the OT (or NT, or Koran, or Book of Mormon... I should name something other than the abrahimic religions)...

Good point. I'm not really saying that somebody has to "teach" you athiesm, just that you have to know of the possibility of a supreme being and then refute it per your own reasoning.

On what I mean by having to understand the possibility of no supreme being existing to be religious, I mean that I personally don't believe that a person can have a full belief in something without understanding the opposite and then reasoning it out, just as a person who is athiest understands the idea of a supreme being but rejects it via their own reasoning.

Hmmm, I see where you're coming from, [qruel]. So if you WERE to apply the strong/weak modifiers to the "atheist", you're saying we're born as a "weak atheist"? I suppose it can also be reasoned, then, that you can label them more specifically as "agnostic" since, in fact, they do not know if a god exists at all. Although most agnostics claim that the knowledge is unattainable by humans, we can agree that an infant lacks the knowledge or possible knowledge of god. That is of course if we are to assume that an infant isn't born into this world knowing all, only to soon forget.

So back to the original question, which was so politely downvoted
"how's promoting atheism to children any worse than promoting Christianity to kids?" aka: either way they're going to be:

A) driven to conclusion through belief without the quest for more information
or
B) Figure it out for themselves through research and intellectual exploration eventually anyway.

Either conclusion that one may come to, I'd hope that they took path "B" to get there

"Hmmm, I see where you're coming from, qualm..."

Hehe. I haven't posted on this thread. I think you mean to address qruel.

Personally I've always defined atheism as the absence of belief in a deity.

A brilliant online authority on theist/atheist matters of debate: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

hahaha sorry

oh and wonderful link!!!

This strikes me as very similar to the brouhaha over Dumbledore being gay. This is a fantasy set in a mythical universe where there is magic and where every human has a familiar. In that universe, the church, which believes many things that would send our Catholics into apoplexy, is evil.

I don't see how that is worth boycotting by anyone.

It's a great book, by the way. Very interesting and fun: whether or not you are religious.

Is she fucking serious? "The Church has a lot to answer for; the inquisition, wars.."
What? You mean that shit that happened almost a THOUSAND years ago?

"No one had to "teach" me how to be an atheist."


I'm truly impressed.

"We are all atheists, some of us just go one god further." -Richard Dawkins

Strictly speaking tho, I am an agnostic towards the God-proposition, but I am no more agnostic than I am towards leprechauns.

Personally, I think "reasonable" is a better word for what I think I am. I just dont think its reasonable to accept something as if it was true, without evidence

thanks BicycleRepairMan for that quote. I've heard that before, do you know where it comes from ?

way to be an evenhanded interviewer.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
Matthew 7.

qruel, It comes from Richard Dawkins. He uses it frequently.

is that his original line or did he get it from somewhere ?
it seems older than that.

For Fox News, that was almost fair and balanced. Save for the fact that his questions were obviously biased and came from a religious view point. Oh, and the loud hostile tone.

I think its a Dawkins quote, I wasnt sure, so I forgot to actually name my source, I know he uses it in "Root Of all Evil?" When he talks about Bertrand Russells orbiting teapot, but I dont think its a Russell quote, and Dawkins usually makes it clear if he's quoting.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further" Richard Dawkins

I think this quote originally came from his documentary "The Root Of All Evil?"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nicole kidman, atheism, movie, golden compass, philip ullman' to 'nicole kidman, atheism, movie, golden compass, philip pullman' - edited by oohahh

"Is she fucking serious? "The Church has a lot to answer for; the inquisition, wars.."
What? You mean that shit that happened almost a THOUSAND years ago? - Marinegunrock"

well, I have to say, the time frame of events should never be ignored in an organization whose entire basis is a collection of texts detailing things that happened over 2000+ years ago.

certainly if the churches entire basis can be that anachronistic then its critics can legitimately call upon facts of history that has occurred in the time since.

Upvote for the interesting debate, despite the fact that this was aired on Faux's "News" garbage for the mind channel...

"how's promoting atheism to children any worse than promoting Christianity to kids?"

Well, the obvious difference is that Atheism is true and Christianity is false. Not much easier than that. (And yes, I know that sounds blunt, but religion claims the same and have nothing to back it up.)

The discussion "what kids are" is interesting, but my idea is that children cannot be categorized as being atheist, christian or even agnostic. They are without the concept of religions or anti-religious ideas and as such should not be put into categories. Maybe "non-theist", but I think that already presupposes that they know what they don't have faith in.

The interviewer is quite obviously biased towards the religious interviewee. "As always Father, you get the last word"; "When [the atheist interviewee] make such a ridiculus and stupid statement..."

The crusades and the inquisition are just the first things that come to mind. Some churches have contributed to a lot of ills more recently in the last 100 years, such as complicity and cooperation with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, molestation of thousands of altar boys, opposing the use of condoms (thereby causing faster population growth and more malnutrition and poverty), and delaying the apology for the treatment of Galileo until 1993. Millions of people are going to die of AIDS or starvation because of the pope's ridiculous and unjustifiable opposition to the use of condoms.

Athiesm is not a lack of religious beliefs, it is the belief that there is no such thing as a supreme being.

I disagree. An atheist, to me, is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. It may be that the concept has never crossed their mind (implicit atheism) or it may be that they have studied and rejected the god proposition themselves (explicit atheism).

I concede that someone would need knowledge of deities to declare themselves an atheist. Nobody, except maybe choggie, goes around declaring that their body inhabits physical space because nobody is aware of an alternative. Likewise, if you're an implicit atheist who's never had exposure to theism, even in vague concept, then you're not going to call yourself an atheist. The fact remains that you have no belief in a god, which is the traditional definition of atheism.

Also, I agree with rottenseed; Children should be encouraged to seek their own answers rather than inherit their parents opinions.

I wonder what they thought about The Chronicles of Narnia.

If you believe in your church, you should have no fear of naysayers, since the truth will shine through, right?

Religion shows its greatest weakness when it tries to stamp out opposing views. It proves that one might see through the lies just by considering alternatives.

The greatest hold that religion has on the world is the parent teaching the child. That's why they fight for religion in schools, and that's why they fight against free speech when it doesn't agree with them.

It doesn't matter if the lies bring comfort and peace to billions (which they don't). They're still lies.

I agree, whether or not religion consoles people is irrelevant. Truth is more important than consolation.

I agree with what the priest said to some degree.

What this interview mostly shows is that on the topic of religion, like so many others, we're just not interested in listening to the other side.

For example, at the very end of the segment, the priest claims that atheists believe that "science can explain everything," -clearly a foolish idea- when the fact is, most atheists readily admit that science can do no such thing (but lack of understanding doesn't necessitate a higher power).

So the priest is arguing against his own ideas of what an atheist is, not what atheists actually are, and he isn't listening to what atheists are actually saying. The reverse could be said for how many atheists think about theists

quoting jwray: "I agree, whether or not religion consoles people is irrelevant. Truth is more important than consolation."

To you and I "the truth" may seem more important, but people gain power, confidence, consolation, etc. from their beliefs regardless of their validity. So from that perspective, the truth is less important to the outcome than the believer's belief.

quoting xxovercastxx:

Children should be encouraged to seek their own answers rather than inherit their parents opinions.

But what if you really believed in hell and eternal damnation and all that? Wouldn't it be terrifying for you if you thought your kids were going to go to hell? I'm just saying, regardless of the validity of the belief, we've got to see it from their point of view.

quoting stayinlf:

I agree with what the priest said to some degree.

What part do you agree with? Or what part to what degree?

BicycleRepairMan you're obviously misinformed, leprechauns are real, and you can suck my balls.

A while back I found myself having a discussion with an atheist friend regarding something that happened between our kids. It made me realise that being atheist doesn't mean one is free from ideology or the tendency to impart this on one's children.

Basically his kids told mine that they were idiots for believing in God. This was pretty upsetting for my kids, because we've raised them to associate the word god, with the love they feel for us and the power of the universe and nature (not a typical explanation, I know, but it's the best compromise we could come up with, between our spiritual/atheist beliefs).

Anyway, my friend apologised, saying his kids had somehow mis-interpretted his ideas about belief in God, but my point is that however well-informed we believe ourselves to be, our ideas are passed onto our kids (I suspect they heard him say "Oh shit, those fucking Jehova's witnesses are at the door again" which may have influenced them somehow....

As parents, the ultimate challenge is to raise children who are compassionate and free-thinking. It's the ultimate challenge, because we have to be aware of how we, ourselves are not compassionate or free-thinking, admit it and openly discuss this with our kids.

persephone nailed it.

Well, the way you explain your "compromise" about the word God, persephone, is really just a semantic discussion. The idea that "God = love" or "God = the power the universe", or even "God = spirituality" is basically just attributing new meaning to the word God. You're most definately not "an idiot" for thinking that, but it conviniently makes the word God part of a different theory / idea.

The term "God" must be defined, and the general way of doing that is that "there is an entity that watches us and can judge us, who is personally involved with everybody, that means YOU.. oh and this entity created life, the universe and everything"

If you believe this hypothesis, you might as well believe in unicorns, leprechauns, manbearpig or satanic christmas critters, because both goes against all evidence. There has not ever been a single verifiable evidence for this god hypothesis, and, furthermore, much evidence has been put forth that directly contradict that hypothesis, therefore the logical conclusion is that such a being cannot exist.

Believing something against evidence is a delusion.

The danger in putting new meaning to the word God, is that not all people do that. Some people believe in the "old" meaning, and I think the word confusion is one of the reasons a person cannot get elected in the States unless there are religious in some form. (Which is sort of rediculus, seeing as most religions are just as "hard" on people who believe in other Gods as Atheists).

quoting Persephone:

"As parents, the ultimate challenge is to raise children who are compassionate and free-thinking. It's the ultimate challenge, because we have to be aware of how we, ourselves are not compassionate or free-thinking, admit it and openly discuss this with our kids."

I agree with the compassionate part, and free-thinking in the "open-minded" sense of the word, but there are certainly values and beliefs that I think are important and I want to impart to my kids.

The question is, where do we cross the line? While saying "it's those fucking Jehovah's Witnesses again" may not be constructive, I'd like my kids to understand that there are a lot better things you can do with your time than dedicate it to a faulty belief.

I agree with gwiz665 that the at the heart of the problem is a stubborn belief that there must be something out there that we can attribute qualities such as love and compassion to, instead of just admitting that these -as well as all of the other emotions and motivations- are part or our nature as living creatures.

ichifish, I agree with you that these qualities are part of our nature and I've never assigned them to something outside of myself. Rather, I believe that our nature is divine. I haven't believed that God is something 'out there' or the guy in white robes or any other traditional view of god, since I was about 14.

I think because the atheist argument is stuck on this definition of god, there is a stubborn adherence to an antiquated idea, limiting the exploration of something new. If you don't believe we are truly divine, the essence of love, so to speak, try this for an experiment:

Get the person you love to sit in front of you on the floor. Hold their hands, massaging them all the time, while you stare into their eyes. Do this for at least ten minutes.If you feel foolish or embarrassed, just relax and keep going anyway. The love you feel for them will well up in your chest, 'til you feel it's going to burst. It's absolutely beautiful.

Now for the interesting part: if you were to do the same with a complete stranger, or someone you didn't like, or someone whose looks even scared you, you will find exactly the same result will occur.

It's been done by many people, all over the world and the results are the same. Go to a tantric workshop if you don't have the opportunity otherwise.

gwiz, our choice has nothing to do with semantics, because when you have one parent who believes in no god and another who believes everything is god, the closest mid point between these disparate ideas, is that there is something amazing about our world, which deserves a word to describes its awesome-ness.

Then even if your choice isn't based on semantics, it is semantics, because the term "Everything is God" is not really what the general idea of God is. So there a change of meaning. Why does it have to be called God? Couldn't it just be something like "everything is special, fantastic or something similar". Everything is not God, everything is everything. :-) I hope you understand what I mean by that.

se·man·tics
–noun (used with a singular verb)

1. Linguistics. a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.

3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

If most people were smart and open-minded, religion would be less hereditary. The sheer heredity, combined with the contradictions between major world religions, prove that most people are, like sheep, easily herded.

Ah, Meg Ryan and Dirk Benedict (Face, A-Team) sure know their lines..

To add to your comments as atheists? i would like to ask a question- if we are typing comments on a blog that someone created, using computers that someone invented, sitting on furniture that someone built - and these all did not just happen into existence, why is it so hard for you to come to terms with the fact that everything as we know it was created by God- you inclusive?

Back to the subject matter that brought me to this blog, I find Pullmans work quite pointless- killing God in the minds of children- if he is an atheist, it follows that he does not believe God exists. If that be true, then why put so much effort into killing a person that does not exist? in addition, if we all are born without knowledge of God, then why bother killing God in children's minds, seeing as he is not there in the first place?


Another thing I find quite distasteful, is the fact that he is no different from the Islamic militants- he is trying to force his opinion on others. Let them choose of their own volition. You cannot eradicate one faith because of your own faith-or lack of it.

I can see his works fuelled by immeasurable degrees of hate....that is not what any child should be brought up on. We can see the high degree of violence among young people as more and more of them turn their backs on God and specifically the church. How much more damage do you need to see to know that without God, and the love He teaches, there is no life or living?

Every child should be taught to love...and that is exactly what Jesus says

May God who gave you all eyes to see, fingers to type and brains with which to reason have mercy on you and help you see that there is a way that seems right unto man, but the end therefore is destruction - you cannot do without God...simple

Wait a minute, did she say "pernicious Christianity"?

Really?

Really???

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter qruel.