That is a most odd response to give. Atheists, I think, are more likely to reject that advice for exactly the same reason they are atheists in the first place - they prefer to avoid authoritarian oppression of all kinds.
So I think that is what you are advocating, more or less, as a religious person.
By allowing the church and/or religious doctrine to infiltrate the thoughts of your children you are washing your hands of your own responsibility as a parent and committing a form of “state” sponsored child abuse.
Obviously the term “state” is in scare quotes but in the USA, (at least in the middle and southern heartlands), where the church has the ideological power religion takes on the role of moral guide. Interestingly this is where crime can be very high and the death penalty most common. (“If only we could actually nail some sense into them”).
The only proper religion for mankind is humanity itself, for it is from this humanity that God first evolved.
God, who is our future, came from humans, who are Their past.
This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense. youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y
When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human.
Look at any set of statistics for intelligence. Especially religious surveys that show that most non-believers know more about religion than believers.
The secular adult world is better educated in religion than the religious world and that indicates a secular interest in religious studies. If secular parents want to know and teach themselves religious studies, it follows that they would not mind starting their secular interest in religion earlier for their children. They would vote for a more intelligent level of religious education. It would improve on what is being taught to religious children today.
It is also the duty of the secular world to insure that it’s future members are not as deluded by superstitious belief as their parents. The tipping point of belief is fast approaching and duty says that we should facilitate change.
Is a good knowledge base a good defence against superstition?
Yes it is.
Its a very slippery slope. Schools are for academics not for social beliefs. Start on something that sounds simple like this , opens the door wide for the state to remove parental influence, then rights, then family. Mandates need to be viewed deeply. I agree changes need to be made, I cannot agree to government mandates.
It’s not just the topics that need to be taught in school, but also the way that things are taught. The issues with the schooling system is that they do not go in depth on subjects, mainly as they are implemented more for creating workers to obey the government rather than cultivate true education. I say that children need to be introduced to the Trivium method if they are to truly thin for themselves.
That question is beyond the scope of my O.P. and would have to go to those who set up school curriculums.
I find it strange though that in the 1600’s children of 12 had already mastered 3 languages and were well versed in the science of that day. Do not hold me to it but if I recall, I got that from the biography of whoever solved the Rosseta stone. It might have been him or his son. Memory, gone.
None of this is relevant.
Whilst Theists try to put “atheists” is a box so they can be caricatured, most atheists simply have no interest in belonging to any kind of groups least of all a pseudo-religous one. People often see the world in their own terms. Theists are simply painting them with the same tar that they paint themselves with they decry atheism for being a religion, based on faith, a belief system, a creed with followers - and wag their fingers. They are just shooting themselves in the foot, by criticising atheism for exactly the same thing that characterises their own creed.
But atheists agree with them: a system of belief based on faith which gathers together in groups, and tells a story in which the followers have to believe so that they may belong is utterly stupid and wrong and discourages independent thought. And yes that criticism can be easily levelled at all religion, but not at atheism.
Most sites I’ve seen support this anyway, do some googling ffs.
I’d say we’re less wrong than theists. We’re holding a rational position of disbelieving but suspending definite judgment until conclusive proof is provided for either side.
Atheism is a response to theism. Without theism, there wouldn’t officially be such a thing as atheism, just like we don’t have adragonism. The more vocal the theists become the more vocal atheists will be in response. If theists didn’t bother anybody with their religion, atheists wouldn’t ever feel the need to criticize it. It’s that simple, really.
It’s incredible, depressing even that in the 21st century you’re in a minority and called extreme for NOT believing in a silly concept with no evidential support in its favor.
I find it particularly funny that the same people who enjoy being in the high IQ group, will deny the validity IQ when it doesn’t fit their political agenda. For example, when it is pointed out that whites score higher than blacks on IQ tests, libel atheists find all sorts of reasons why IQ measurements are nonsense.
Your own link says that Mormons and white fundamentalists have better knowledge of Christianity than atheists/agnostics (FFS).
So if you are in a forum discussion with a white fundamentalist, then the likelihood is that he knows more about Christianity than you do. In reality, those statistics don’t mean anything when it comes to individuals.
Thing is … if you look at an individual atheist, he may score poorly on the religious knowledge test. But he wants to be associated with the ‘knowledgeable atheist’ group. It’s effortless and convenient.
Less wrong about what and with whom? You always have a better truth? By virtue of being atheist?
I’m not a liberal (or a conservative for that matter), still developing my political views, I’d say I’m a radical centrist. I’m well aware that blacks score lower than whites on IQ tests and that Asians score higher than whites, just like I’m well aware that reality doesn’t bend to my will unlike some political extremists.
And besides, I never indicated that IQ is the perfect measurement of intellect, just that atheists on average score higher than theists.
Yes, I noticed that, but I also noticed that atheists/agnostics have higher knowledge than protestants when it comes to Christianity and that they have a better knowledge of religions generally than members of a specific religion.
Those statistics are better information than nothing, but I do think that if you have the chance to talk to somebody, it’s a much better way of assessing their knowledge than going by the statistical average.
Less wrong about God of course. No decent evidence presented and good amounts of evidence supporting the position of God being a human construct conceived out of psychological and social needs → rational position is disbelief in such a being due to lack of decent evidence for its existence and good evidence for its nonexistence (albeit not conclusive).
Saying that atheists are less wrong does not add anything to the original statement that ‘God does not exist’. The truth of it depends on the truth of the original statement. And atheists obviously believe that they are correct in making the original statement, otherwise they would not say it.
It sounds impressive if you can make lots of different statements. But it’s less impressive when you realize that they depend on the truth of one statement.
Umm, yes, of course I am. I am bothered when children are taught unsupported ideas by anybody.
I think this time you’re not the one getting it. By less wrong I obviously mean that the position atheists are holding due to evidence presented (or lack of it) is more rational one to take than theism and therefore it is less likely to be wrong and more likely to be true.
And very few atheists generally say “God doesn’t exist”, myself I reserve such absolutes only for contradictory concepts of God, general atheist position is “I don’t believe in god”, NOT “God doesn’t exist”
Then you will spend a lot of time being bothered. People believe a huge number of unsupported ideas. Including atheists. Including ‘smart’ people. LOL
And they tend to communicate these ideas to others.
If you want to educate them, then you need to gently nudge them in the correct direction. Which does NOT mean calling them delusional, mentally ill, child abusers…
Yeah, yeah… ‘the truth must come out even if it hurts’… blah, blah.
People who are hurt do not listen.
Sure. ‘Less wrong’ was part of your original claim. You are also claiming that atheists are rational and theists are irrational.
Do you read the posts on ILP? Here, lots of atheists say that God does not exist and that God is impossible.
And isn’t the orthodox atheist belief : ‘I lack a belief in god’?
The word games are so important.
