When Dawkins says its "child abuse" to raise a child Catholic...

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. What god does a newborn know of, let alone believe in? An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. A newborn cannot believe in a god for the same reason it can't believe in the virtue of bacon - it doesn't know what that is, and it doesn't have the mental faculties to understand the concept.

Which is both speculative at best and somewhat irrelevant to the point.

 

They would be their own god, in charge of their own destiny.

 

It depends, even children sometime ponder what is beyond, given the answer of nothing they still try to find answers. Even Howard Gardner tried to identify it as on of his intelligences. Some kids do have a connection to the spiritual. That is seen in some but hard to tease out of our world.

 

Everything I have read from you shows a willfull ignorance of facts.

 

Its not complicated just don't stick your children into your faith by confirmation or other garbage until they turn eighteen and can choose to do it. Its not hard you make your children into [insert faith] when they are impressionable the most and muck up their little brains with the hopes they stay muck brained as adults who will continue the mucking up.

 

It’s impossible to raise children absolutely neutral, be it religiously or politically or culturally. It probably would be child abuse if you tried. Parents ought to be "congruent".

 

Stalin and Mao were both old men.

 

Are religions beneficial if they teach a preponderance of positive values? The God thing is pretty much silliness but it does provide an anchor to build a value system on. I suppose we could teach kids all of the laws instead of religious stories but would they adopt them as a way of life?

In America the closest thing we have to a secular creed is the Pledge of Allegiance, which expresses several ideas that we should strive to make part and parcel of our lives. It didn't always include the phrase "under God" but would it have been better to insert "one nation under the federal government" instead of "one nation under God?"

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation ​

under God,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."​

So if kids are indoctrinated in religious dogma is that a bad thing if it prevents them from turning into callous savages? When done right the stories act as a vehicle for conveying the essential idea. The trick is to know that the stories are just stories and have no basis in fact.

Consider the story about the Good Samaritan. When you see someone in distress and need should you walk on by or should you stop and help the person? Would you want someone to ignore you in your time of need or would you want someone to help you and appreciate their help when given?

If the stories about genocide in the Old Testament upset you would you do them yourself because they are in the Bible or would you act more chivalrously in war because you know that's the right thing to do?

If you accept the idea that you should forgive your enemies then why would you want to destroy and kill them instead of having them as your friends?

 

Dawkins pretty much is the lowest common demonator of atheist.

no thought has gone into his non belief of God the Creator.
He bashes metaphors in the Bible and stories that are told in the bible for example of how to live.

He has a huge following of non thinking flotsam.

Angry over the fact Jonah never really lived in a whale but some people think he did.

he's all about rallying the non thinking and feeding into their ignorance and lack of thought on the matter.

True Atheism leads to viable philosophical debate...intelligent Atheistic conversation never brings up the metaphors and the fables.

 

At birth, we all meet the almighty Reality which cries out, "I am," pretty much the way Descartes says we discovered our own being.

We think, therefore, we exist, according to Descartes.

But external thoights come to us from some source outside of our own mind, too.
The seven sense bring the evidence for this to us.

We ARE not alone.

From birth we realize that there is some other entity operation independently of ourselves.

This "other" is the cause of pain but also pleasure, the source of our nurturing but also demanding we adapt to it.

What parents do, mostly by example, whether they are atheists or otherwise, is teach children behaviors that they think will cope with this Reality they still face daily themselves.
The way child learn to cope starts with Institution of Motherhood and what happens between the child and this first contact with Reality, mother.
But the cultural institution soon has input in leading the kids into ways to cope that society has come to accept as OK.

That is why we discuss whether sexually promiscuous societies are safe coping skills or dangerous,

 

Hmm,..

People have chosen a way to behave.

The ancients realized that the options are finite, and the choice of cope-ing skills which kids can make and live with are rather the same in every generation.

Myths arose to describe the finite ways a person can choose as he/she copes with Reality.
The myths saw these fixed patterns as implying a limited number of immortal behaviors which could be likened to a worshipping of some way of life, hence representative if a God available to them as an idea or example in the stories describing what happens during these lives.

 

Except this indoctrination doesn;t seem to work at all. The more religious a country is the more violent and criminal it seems to be.

 

You mean denominator.

It looks like a great deal of thought has gone into his work. I realise you have never read any.

Yes...and thats a good thing.

He has a huge following of intelligent rational people

Riightfully angry that some people teach their children such nonsense

No he isn't -that would be the mosques and churches.

How would you know?

 

I think you are confusing persecution with ​prosecution.

 

ta very much

i've read dawkins and tried to find something other than the bashing of metaphors.

Ya think?
His great claim to fame is he needs the metaphors to be believed as historic fact. Without the believer that actually takes it literally he has nothing to entertain the children with.

the Holy Bible is mostly metaphor and not fact. for Dawkins this just isn't going to be a basis for discussion.

Better to make fun of people not taught properly.

Barfs ....ever heard beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

your point here is honourable by itself.
but you used the moment to ignore mine and went for this... the anger you talk of i agree is just.
children should be allowed to live out their childhood without the pressure of religion and philosophy pushed on them.

learning right from wrong , morality, justice, the value of one's word being a thing to cherish,love, what it is to be mean to others.....
this should be the time spent ....religion and philosophy should be something they find themselves if they so wish.

again you ignore my point to make insult

i was pressured into atheism by my father. His BeatNik friends from time to time came to our house and i was allowed to be in their company.
it really got pretty heady by the time i was seven.

He made it impossible for me to believe in God. They were genius.

I've yet to hear any of the talks i was privy to, even remotely. It's all about making fun of those that believe and for those that take the Bible literally it's a blood sport.

what Dawkins fails to see is the actual value in living and thinking and acting out what is expected to a person of belief.

i could maybe see it if he had anything really to say but making fun.
Buit he doesn't...it's not even pseudo intellectualism....

I now know God .
i enjoy the Holy Bible for what it is.

 

It is relevant to your point that atheism is the default.

Children are born neither atheist or theist because to be of either faith, you must first understand the concept of God.

It is not speculative to say that most civilizations throughout human history have created gods, it is a fact.

 

If noboady told them there is no God they won't be atheist.

Children once they reach age of reason the first few things they'll ask their parents:

Child: who created me?
Parents: we did
Child: who created you?
Parents: your grandparents
Child: who created my grand parents?
Parents: your great grand parents
Child: who created my great garents?
Parents: your great great grand parents
Child and parents ask and the answers went as far as the fingers can count with so many great great, great, great great grand parents finally the parents said to the child, apes created us.
Child: who created the apes?
Parents finally gave up....GOD!!!okay!

Children know there is a God from the day they reach age of reasoning.

 

Once the child reach age of reason they start asking question such as where did that bacon came from or who created him or her, or how things came about they'll go on and on because God's spirit is in them until their atheist parents cleanse it out of them.

 

Like so many you appear confused about what atheism actually is.

It is not the positive assertion there is no god, it is the null hypothesis which awaits evidence for a god.

Everyone is an atheist to some degree, those who take on the term as their identifier generally just don't believe in one more god than theists.

Not believing a claim is not the same as making and opposite claim. Most atheists are non-believers, not positive anti-believers.

 

My informations about the Commies under Mao in China has nothing to do with anything what you said. In Tibet for example every single temple without any exception was destroyed from the chinese Commies. The teachers in the schools payed money to the children if they murdered animals. And so on and so on. Nothing what you say becomes true because you use the typically endless stupid way of the Commies: "If you are not able to win against someone [because you are wrong] - kill the reputation of the person - if this is not enough destroy the person, the family, the village, the community, the city, the state, the whole world - but never think you could be wrong." One of my Yodas was by the way a monk who lived nearly his whole life in China before they threw him out. He was a perfect chinese man - he loved China with his whole heart - so no one was able to see any difference between him and an old Chinese. If I remember well then I saw in his eyes sometimes a message like: “Remember, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." The chinese monk (indeed he was a German) was by the way a wonderful piano player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeEFGCvA5VY

 

They died as old men - but what do you think means this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tex1zD9Kq9s

 

And how do you explain this to a child with two years who brings you a dead cavy and says to you "repair!"?

Atheism is a belief - so atheists are not able to be non-believers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DopgBNBoVqY

 

You say that the Guineau Pig has died and that all things die one day so its important that we enjoy our lives as long as possible.

Atheiesm is a beleif in the way that 'Off' is a TV channel.

 

I don't even understand what a "cavy" is or what relevance that has to the discussion at hand.

Atheism is the lack of belief. The common analogy is that someone who doesn't collect stamps is not a stamp collector.

 

A cavy is a guinea Pig