What's the best way to push theism into the minority?

[MMcNeely]

Sad because you think it's true or sad because there is no hell?

[YY]

Sad because you think it's true or sad because there is no hell?

Sad because there is no hell and that poor girl was "indoctrinated" to a life of fear. I don't think she's been to discovery yet. If she has, that's sad.

[The Wannabe]

Sad because you think it's true or sad because there is no hell?

Sad because there is no hell and that poor girl was "indoctrinated" to a life of fear. I don't think she's been to discovery yet. If she has, that's sad.

So you agree that indoctrination does indeed happen from time to time.   

[YY]

So you agree that indoctrination does indeed happen from time to time.    

Yes I do. But I think most people question their faith when they reach a certain age. Question might be a strong word. Maybe re-examine?

[screwtape]

Inciting violence without condoning it. Very much like the crosshair incident.

Where have I incited violence?

[Truth OT]

I'm just trying to explain, from a theist's pov, why you can put scientific evidence in front of someone and they see it there in black and white but still aren't swayed by your argument.

It's called willful ignorance.

I think that in a lot of cases it comes down to trust. The person who believes a certain way will very likely have reservations about another person and that person's agenda that will bias him or her against the information that other person uses to disprove what the original person has a strong belief in.
For the most part, people do not change very easily. We are creatures of habit that tend to get set in our ways and we tend to trust what we are comfortable with and have suspicions about things outside of our box.

[curiousgirl]

And some of us like to live in the real world, TOT, where we acknowledge that something is true whether we are comfortable or not.

[Truth OT]

And some of us like to live in the real world, TOT, where we acknowledge that something is true whether we are comfortable or not.

CG, in the real world, people very commonly cling to that which brings them comfort. Very rarely do people pause to do some type of intellectual exercise brfore taking action. Oftentimes we just go with what makes us feel good and think nothing more of it.
In the real world, millions upon millions could care less about what is true or even substantive, they just want to experience as much pleasure as living their lives will allow them. Women will dance to music that has lyrics that objectifies them for the simple reason that the rhythme of the song makes them feel good.
As sad as it may be, in the real world, most people just go with it and don't bother engaging in much that challenges their way of thinking.   

[curiousgirl]

Sorry, TOT, but you really seem to be psychologically projecting on this one:

CG, in the real world, people very commonly cling to that which brings them comfort.

Are you still a theist?

[YY]

Where have I incited violence?

As a moderator, your posts may be taken as having more experience behind them, more weight to their word, more significance.

How do you fix a problem with ants in your kitchen?  Get rid of the ants.  How about if you have mice?  Get rid of the mice.  What about butthole religious people who want to base your government on a 2000 year old anthology of hebrew myths?  Get rid of them. 

[curiousgirl]

YY, in Screwtape's defense, I actually debated with him for that very statement you quoted, but he is not supporting genocide. If you actually go back and read my debate with him, he says this:

That does not mean I advocate killing anyone as a solution.  I don't.  But I understand the impulse.   I think the thought crosses a lot of people's minds.  I also think almost all of them instantly reject it.

[YY]

YY, in Screwtape's defense, I actually debated with him for that very statement you quoted, but he is not supporting genocide. If you actually go back and read my debate with him, he says this:

That does not mean I advocate killing anyone as a solution.  I don't.  But I understand the impulse.   I think the thought crosses a lot of people's minds.  I also think almost all of them instantly reject it.

I saw that, but people have to be careful about saying something and then adding a disclaimer in a totally different section that may be easily missed. As seen in the Sarah Palin crosshair incident, she also does not advocate killing anyone as a solution, but the damage had already been done.

[screwtape]

Women will dance to music that has lyrics that objectifies them for the simple reason that the rhythme of the song makes them feel good.

This is definitely true.  Chris Rock said so.

[screwtape]

As a moderator, your posts may be taken as having more experience behind them, more weight to their word, more significance.

How do you fix a problem with ants in your kitchen?  Get rid of the ants.  How about if you have mice?  Get rid of the mice.  What about butthole religious people who want to base your government on a 2000 year old anthology of hebrew myths?  Get rid of them. 

Ah, that.  Well, yes, I suppose if you did not read that carefully[1], you might take that as inciting violence.  However, if you read the sentence that immediately follows that quote:

It is not a real solution or a practical solution (mainly because we don't have the political power to make it happen) or a moral solution (maybe debatable).  But it is often the first thing that pops into our 250,000 year old monkey brains. 

...you would see it was not inciting, but explaining to curiousgirl why that might be something that occurs to people.  My disclaimer was immediate, not in another section. 

1.	Or if you were dishonest.  Or stupid. Or didn't understand English.  Or some combination of those.

[Alzael]

Where have I incited violence?

As a moderator, your posts may be taken as having more experience behind them, more weight to their word, more significance.

Not really. You don't get how things work here very much do you.

[bertatberts]

I for one will surely teach my son about who/what I believe God to be and all of the things that make up my spiritual practices, just as I will teach him math, science, art, history, eating well, poker strategy and anything else I deem necessary to give him the tools to succeed in life.

I do the same, however I don't instil fear, guilt, and shame. I don't tell him he's a sinner, I don't tell him someone/thing died for him, and I most certainly don't tell him there’s a huge creature, watching his every move (monsters in the closet).

I think it's unfair to withhold any information that helped me to become who I am "until such a time as they can decide for themselves" whenever that would be.

Agreed if it were factually information.
If you personally, weren't instilled with fear, guilt, and shame. You may have turned out different. (that’s assuming you were indoctrinated from birth)

No matter how much atheists poo poo religion and spirituality, it's a very important part of many people's lives and we feel that it enriches our lives. You may not agree, but it would be unfair for you to suggest that we raise our children to your standards just as it would be unfair for me to force you to teach your children religion.

There is a huge difference here, religion is already enforcing it's views, on me and mine.
I however, haven’t told you to stop instilling your views, I merely said you should do it when the child is better able to understand what it is you are trying to convey. The first thing I teach my children is how to critically think, and to take nobody's word for it, to experiment, to experience. We don't teach eighth grade maths to first graders for a good reason. When they are able to comprehend eighth grade maths we teach them. I'm just suggesting that your child will be a much happier child without the inculcation of religion in his early years, or at least just teach him the stories as stories, and as he progresses through his childhood years teach him in grade stages. Then at the age of say twelve you could tell him that the stories are how you live your life, and if he wishes he can join you, for example. All children want to be like their father/mother, so your battles all but won, and you would have brought a person into the world who wants to be and act like the individual he/she is and not a clone of dad/mum.

I understand that "One nation under God" is forcing all americans to mention God in our pledge, but this is a free country and people can choose not to say it when they recite the pledge. They can also make the conscious effort to recognize that this statement was put there by people who don't share their beliefs and understand that this is a part of the foundation of the country they live in. I for one will do the same when the atheist population speaks to my son (and myself for that matter) about subjects that I don't agree with.

It shouldn't be about subjects you don't agree with, it should be about subjects he/she doesn't agree with. Your child is not you; he/she is an individual, in his/her own right. And should be allowed to be, that.

[Hatter23]

YY, in Screwtape's defense, I actually debated with him for that very statement you quoted, but he is not supporting genocide. If you actually go back and read my debate with him, he says this:

That does not mean I advocate killing anyone as a solution.  I don't.  But I understand the impulse.   I think the thought crosses a lot of people's minds.  I also think almost all of them instantly reject it.

I saw that, but people have to be careful about saying something and then adding a disclaimer in a totally different section that may be easily missed. As seen in the Sarah Palin crosshair incident, she also does not advocate killing anyone as a solution, but the damage had already been done.

That's NOWHERE near similar. He was stating that human beings have a primitive animalistic simple impulse, but most people know better than to act like a caveman. That's not a weaselly disclaimer or afterthought. That's addressing the very heart of how human minds work. I wouldn't mock even a person who was opposed to me for making such a statement, as long as it was stated in such a clinical fashion.

[Nam]

I feel the only way to make religion the minority is be killing everyone on the planet.  That way the religion would stay yet not be used, and the people will be gone.

-Nam

[YY]

I for one will surely teach my son about who/what I believe God to be and all of the things that make up my spiritual practices, just as I will teach him math, science, art, history, eating well, poker strategy and anything else I deem necessary to give him the tools to succeed in life.

I do the same, however I don't instil fear, guilt, and shame. I don't tell him he's a sinner, I don't tell him someone/thing died for him, and I most certainly don't tell him there’s a huge creature, watching his every move (monsters in the closet).

Great! I don't either.

I think it's unfair to withhold any information that helped me to become who I am "until such a time as they can decide for themselves" whenever that would be.

Agreed if it were factually information.
If you personally, weren't instilled with fear, guilt, and shame. You may have turned out different. (that’s assuming you were indoctrinated from birth)

So yes, I was indoctrinated from birth. I was instilled with fear, guilt, and shame. I have overcome this to an extent as you probably have yourself in some departments. I have a great relationship with my mother who is still a strong Catholic and she understands my religious beliefs and accepts them. She's even been to a few services. I'll do the same for my son.

No matter how much atheists poo poo religion and spirituality, it's a very important part of many people's lives and we feel that it enriches our lives. You may not agree, but it would be unfair for you to suggest that we raise our children to your standards just as it would be unfair for me to force you to teach your children religion.

There is a huge difference here, religion is already enforcing it's views, on me and mine.
I however, haven’t told you to stop instilling your views, I merely said you should do it when the child is better able to understand what it is you are trying to convey. The first thing I teach my children is how to critically think, and to take nobody's word for it, to experiment, to experience. We don't teach eighth grade maths to first graders for a good reason. When they are able to comprehend eighth grade maths we teach them. I'm just suggesting that your child will be a much happier child without the inculcation of religion in his early years, or at least just teach him the stories as stories, and as he progresses through his childhood years teach him in grade stages. Then at the age of say twelve you could tell him that the stories are how you live your life, and if he wishes he can join you, for example. All children want to be like their father/mother, so your battles all but won, and you would have brought a person into the world who wants to be and act like the individual he/she is and not a clone of dad/mum.

I think you underestimate the brilliance of today's children. They are MUCH smarter than we ever were and I doubt waiting until age 12 will make any difference.

I understand that "One nation under God" is forcing all americans to mention God in our pledge, but this is a free country and people can choose not to say it when they recite the pledge. They can also make the conscious effort to recognize that this statement was put there by people who don't share their beliefs and understand that this is a part of the foundation of the country they live in. I for one will do the same when the atheist population speaks to my son (and myself for that matter) about subjects that I don't agree with.

It shouldn't be about subjects you don't agree with, it should be about subjects he/she doesn't agree with. Your child is not you; he/she is an individual, in his/her own right. And should be allowed to be, that.

Be realistic. Seriously think about what you're saying. You're recommending that all people refrain from teaching their children their views until the age of 12 and not to model the lives of their children after themselves?

[rickymooston]

...

Proof by contradiction is an effective means of proof but its not the only way.

The best way?  One has to distinguish logical argument from persuation. (Ironically, I got that point was a very radical but intelligent young earth creationist Jason Lisle).

Best Logical Argument:

The best logical argument for the non-existence of God, like all theistic arguments is probabilistic in nature.

1. Establish the inherent unproveability of the God concept. This effectively involves realizing that we see only natural occurences and that we don't know the full set of "natural" events. It is therefore logically impossible for us to ever objectively postulate the supernatural or even comprehend what the term means.   At best we can have answerable questions which one can interpret as "sign posts" to the supernatural but for which natural explanations may also exist with the axiom that matter existed in some form or other forever.    We can't even prove that a given event happened in a permanent way.
2. Having established that it is philosophically impossible to have an objective reason to establish theism as a best explanation, one discusses Russel's tea pot story about the burden of proof.
3. One can use history to show that man kind has a tendency to make up odd religious claims without any objective evidence for any of them.

Weaknesses in the above.
1. We can still "guess" what the natural laws are. We have some idea what we think most of them are. Quantum mechanics is the oddest
2. We can't prove a negative objectively. We are not proving that the books of the bible are not true accounts. They could be. (Noted we could go through the trouble to find weaknesses in them but the counter might be that the real details were lost in the sands of time).
3. We can't answer the unanswerable.

Most Persuasive Argument:

I don't know what is the most persuasive argument for non-God. Proably the argument of suffering. Oddly, theists don't deny suffering and suffering doesn't conflict with their God's world view.

But theists often see God as being loving in a human sense of the word loving.

As an example, one of the pastors I knew, a person I rather liked, lost his son to suicide. This seems to be shattering his personal faith.

[screwtape]

YY,

Where's my apology?  I pretty clearly showed you what's what.  You were wrong.  Own up to it.

[bertatberts]

I for one will surely teach my son about who/what I believe God to be and all of the things that make up my spiritual practices, just as I will teach him math, science, art, history, eating well, poker strategy and anything else I deem necessary to give him the tools to succeed in life.

I do the same, however I don't instil fear, guilt, and shame. I don't tell him he's a sinner, I don't tell him someone/thing died for him, and I most certainly don't tell him there’s a huge creature, watching his every move (monsters in the closet).

Great! I don't either.

Sorry don't believe you, I might believe you haven't told him he's a sinner, but I doubt you haven't told him of jesus and god.If that is true, well done, but you still lie to him.

I think it's unfair to withhold any information that helped me to become who I am "until such a time as they can decide for themselves" whenever that would be.

Agreed if it were factually information.
If you personally, weren't instilled with fear, guilt, and shame. You may have turned out different. (that’s assuming you were indoctrinated from birth)

So yes, I was indoctrinated from birth. I was instilled with fear, guilt, and shame. I have overcome this to an extent

Yes but you were still abused and you wish to put your own child, through that same abuse. As you say you haven't got over it.

as you probably have yourself in some departments.

Not I I was brought up in a completely secular home, I didn't really encounter religion until I was 12, when I was better able to understand the concepts.

I have a great relationship with my mother who is still a strong Catholic and she understands my religious beliefs and accepts them. She's even been to a few services.

But she still abused you.

I'll do the same for my son.

I really do pity your son.

No matter how much atheists poo poo religion and spirituality, it's a very important part of many people's lives and we feel that it enriches our lives. You may not agree, but it would be unfair for you to suggest that we raise our children to your standards just as it would be unfair for me to force you to teach your children religion.

There is a huge difference here, religion is already enforcing it's views, on me and mine.
I however, haven’t told you to stop instilling your views, I merely said you should do it when the child is better able to understand what it is you are trying to convey. The first thing I teach my children is how to critically think, and to take nobody's word for it, to experiment, to experience. We don't teach eighth grade maths to first graders for a good reason. When they are able to comprehend eighth grade maths we teach them. I'm just suggesting that your child will be a much happier child without the inculcation of religion in his early years, or at least just teach him the stories as stories, and as he progresses through his childhood years teach him in grade stages. Then at the age of say twelve you could tell him that the stories are how you live your life, and if he wishes he can join you, for example. All children want to be like their father/mother, so your battles all but won, and you would have brought a person into the world who wants to be and act like the individual he/she is and not a clone of dad/mum.

I think you underestimate the brilliance of today's children. They are MUCH smarter than we ever were and I doubt waiting until age 12 will make any difference.

I'm not talking about not educating children, I talking about not making them clones of yourself, My children are A students, that's because all we have taught them is to think for themselves and question everything, I could put my nine year old  daughter on here and she'll give you a run for your money.

I understand that "One nation under God" is forcing all americans to mention God in our pledge, but this is a free country and people can choose not to say it when they recite the pledge. They can also make the conscious effort to recognize that this statement was put there by people who don't share their beliefs and understand that this is a part of the foundation of the country they live in. I for one will do the same when the atheist population speaks to my son (and myself for that matter) about subjects that I don't agree with.

It shouldn't be about subjects you don't agree with, it should be about subjects he/she doesn't agree with. Your child is not you; he/she is an individual, in his/her own right. And should be allowed to be, that.

Be realistic. Seriously think about what you're saying. You're recommending that all people refrain from teaching their children their views until the age of 12

Well it worked with me and my siblings, and countless other families I know of, but I have to agree it wont work with theist as they wont have any sheep to control.

and not to model the lives of their children after themselves?

That would be preferable, as they are not you they are individuals. Let the children choose.

[gonegolfing]

YY:

I think you underestimate the brilliance of today's children. They are MUCH smarter than we ever were and I doubt waiting until age 12 will make any difference.

Please produce the evidence and data to back up your statement.

Regardless, it's only a selfish and delusional parent that would be dishonest enough to "smarten up" a naive child with the intention of forcing them to be exposed to the baseless god assumption and with the goal of that assumption having a lifelong stifling effect as the child matures. A parent who falsely thinks that their child is mentally mature enough and then introduces the god idea to the child as if it were true and then reinforces that idea with the many bizarre and disgusting doctrines that go along with the idea, all as if it were true, is a parent that is acting with manipulative and selfish ends. Only a disgusting fool would do such a thing to a child.

It's more than clear that the god idea should only be discussed with a child as an idea. It's history should be explained along with the reason why this idea was birthed in the primitive minds of individuals who didn't know any better. But only if the child asks ! They do not have a right to be told about god ideas. You are not obligated to tell them either. The only duty that you have as their parent is to truthfully explain the idea when asked about it and then of course leave it with the child at that point with no more said until the child were to ask for more. That's it, no more no less.

You feel no obligation to explain Cyclopes or Zeus, off the cuff to your child, do you ? Enough said.

An honest explanation of the god idea is not indoctrinating. A parent has crossed the indoctrination line however when they teach the child to accept the idea as real and true and tell them they'll suffer grave consequences if they don't. These actions are nothing but selfish controlling and delusional.

I sure hope you're not like that 

Cheers   

[MMcNeely]

Gone hit the nail on the head.  100% correct.

[YY]

, I could put my nine year old  daughter on here and she'll give you a run for your money.

Is this because your daughter is indoctrinated with your values? Ahhhh, it's ok for you to do so, but not me?

You're kidding yourself if you think that you were given free reign to choose how to think until you were 12. You may not have been formally taught how to think, but every time your parents spoke to each other, to their friends, on the phone etc., you were listening and picked up on their values.

And please tell my why you feel sorry for my son? That is the MOST condescending comment I've heard on these boards yet.

[YY]

You feel no obligation to explain Cyclopes or Zeus, off the cuff to your child, do you ? Enough said.

I don't take Cyclopes or Zeus as role models in my life so I won't be teaching him about that.

A parent has crossed the indoctrination line however when they teach the child to accept the idea as real and true and tell them they'll suffer grave consequences if they don't.

I don't know why you'd assume I would? I don't believe in Hell or a vengeful god. I will teach my son that life is about choices and how the choices they make is mostly directly related to the outcomes of their decisions. God comes in when they are at a crossroad and need help making that decision. Like it or not, it's my God perspective that has led me to the person I am today. I like who that is and I think my child will benefit from similar thinking.

[Hatter23]

It is the truth that God does not exist, but it is your understanding that you like God, so you don't care what I say. There, I fixed that for you.

OK first, I'm just trying to point out a fact about theists that you don't seem to be getting. You want to keep proving your point so I'll make one more response.

Is there a possibility that "God" does not exist according to your definition? Might I have a different definition that you possibly don't understand or agree with?

But that's off topic so I'll discontinue here.

OH certainly you could have a diferent definition of God. Though, I ask you:




(1)Define God. Do not use weasel words or circular definitions.
(2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
(3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
has worshipped, again without committing a logical error

Until you do those three things....your worship of that deity is the intellectual equivalent a gibbering tribal primitive bowing before their god, UGABUGA.

[YY]

OH certainly you could have a diferent definition of God. Though, I ask you:

(1)Define God. Do not use weasel words or circular definitions.
(2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
(3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man
has worshipped, again without committing a logical error

Until you do those three things....your worship of that deity is the intellectual equivalent a gibbering tribal primitive bowing before their god, UGABUGA.

There's already another thread addressed to me about this topic.

So why is it that a God that exists beyond logic and comprehension seems to need to fit into your 3 objective criteria to effect change in someone's life? I'll ask you a question now. Suppose you remove all of your criteria of definition. Will you then be open to a particular God or flying spaghetti monster or what have you influencing your quality of life?  Let's say this flying spaghetti monster will make your life 100% more fulfilling? Will you turn it away due to pride and ego? What about 50%? 1%? Is there a cutoff point?

[Truth OT]

Regardless, it's only a selfish and delusional parent that would be dishonest enough to "smarten up" a naive child with the intention of forcing them to be exposed to the baseless god assumption and with the goal of that assumption having a lifelong stifling effect as the child matures. A parent who falsely thinks that their child is mentally mature enough and then introduces the god idea to the child as if it were true and then reinforces that idea with the many bizarre and disgusting doctrines that go along with the idea, all as if it were true, is a parent that is acting with manipulative and selfish ends. Only a disgusting fool would do such a thing to a child.

It's more than clear that the god idea should only be discussed with a child as an idea. It's history should be explained along with the reason why this idea was birthed in the primitive minds of individuals who didn't know any better. But only if the child asks ! They do not have a right to be told about god ideas. You are not obligated to tell them either. The only duty that you have as their parent is to truthfully explain the idea when asked about it and then of course leave it with the child at that point with no more said until the child were to ask for more. That's it, no more no less.

You feel no obligation to explain Cyclopes or Zeus, off the cuff to your child, do you ? Enough said.

An honest explanation of the god idea is not indoctrinating. A parent has crossed the indoctrination line however when they teach the child to accept the idea as real and true and tell them they'll suffer grave consequences if they don't. These actions are nothing but selfish controlling and delusional.

I believe that the concept of the Christian God is a concept that a parent would be well advised to discuss with there children from a young age much like they should discuss a subject like sex. If the child is growing up in the west, then they will inevitably be contronted with the idea such the same way that a child growing up in Iran will be likely to encounter the concepts of Islam.
I am a firm believer that parents need to be the initial suppliers of information as opposed to letting some unvetted source play that role. It is beneficial for a child to be taught that many, if not most people believe that there is a God that created the heavens and the Earth and will hold man accountable. They further would benefit from knowing that people believe this with a religious ferver that oftens causes them to make life decisions based on this belief.
Parents should expose their kids to what has been written and accepted about the Christian God so that they will understand the mindsets or why the mindsets of many people are as they are. If parent do this, I believe they are doing well by their seeds, the danger only comes into play if the parents position what is believed about God as fact as opposed to legend.