Atheist Children

[Orlion]

Yeah. In the end, I, too, will shake the dust off my feet and logout forever. But there is good here - there are people who are not only intelligent - the least valuable quality - but worthy of dialog. That is the hope I hold out, supported when sometimes Ali or Murrin or somebody says a human word, but most of the time trampled on, so it's Harbinger, or now Orlion's "Jesus-lion" crack and so on. Mere heckling. And we can't - and shouldn't - bear the heckling forever.

Call a Whaaa!-mbulance, then. Just remember, what you are complaining about Harbinger and I doing is exactly what Ali was talking about when she was saying you didn't respect her beliefs.

You want an intelligent exchange? Quit dodging the question. You want respect? Show some. You wish people weren't hostile to your beliefs? Stop being hostile to theirs. You want a rebuttal that isn't fifty years old? Don't use arguments that have been outdated for hundreds of years. You and Cyberweez are receiving only what you sow.

[rusmeister]

Yeah. In the end, I, too, will shake the dust off my feet and logout forever. But there is good here - there are people who are not only intelligent - the least valuable quality - but worthy of dialog. That is the hope I hold out, supported when sometimes Ali or Murrin or somebody says a human word, but most of the time trampled on, so it's Harbinger, or now Orlion's "Jesus-lion" crack and so on. Mere heckling. And we can't - and shouldn't - bear the heckling forever.

Call a Whaaa!-mbulance, then. Just remember, what you are complaining about Harbinger and I doing is exactly what Ali was talking about when she was saying you didn't respect her beliefs.

You want an intelligent exchange? Quit dodging the question. You want respect? Show some. You wish people weren't hostile to your beliefs? Stop being hostile to theirs. You want a rebuttal that isn't fifty years old? Don't use arguments that have been outdated for hundreds of years. You and Cyberweez are receiving only what you sow.

No, Orlion.
I am not doing the same thing. I am NOT saying that you believe in fairy tales, or even that you are idiots, something constantly implied in my direction.
When the question is, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", then "dodging it" (insisting on a rephrasing so that the answer can be put into a logical framework) is the only sensible thing to do.

When you say that 'Weez "whines", you project an unreasonable attitude onto his quite reasonable one. We treat you as reasonable, but wrong. You treat us as unreasonable from the get-go.

I have expounded before on how the idea that "ideas are outdated" is silly - that if something is true, it does not then become "stale" or "moldy". It does not have "an expiration date". So the unreasonableness is decidedly not on my side there.

I do NOT see any of you as actually crazy (with the possible exception of Holsety, to the extent that he himself admits), despite Fist's continual misunderstanding of my speaking of ideas leading to insanity if followed to the end (as Nietzsche actually did, and people here, I believe, have not). The treatment really is one way in that respect. So my respected colleague from Westchester County is mistaken, and it is not disrespectful to say so. But it is to say that what he believes has just as much basis as a belief in the modern conception of Santa Claus does, for it reveals an abyss of ignorance.

Respect may NOT mean "treating other views as equally true as my own" It CAN mean "taking them under serious consideration (and ceasing to speak of Flying Spaghetti Monsters)". I take paganism, atheism and agnosticism quite seriously, I think their adherents, for the most part, to be quite uninformed, especially in regards to history, above all, the history of the Christian Church they attack (so Murrin will get his response, as he is showing himself at the moment to be reasonable and able to think through to what the really important issues must be).

[Avatar]

I really believe most people haven't.

And that assumption is the downfall of every discussion we have with you. *shrug* How do you know I haven't?

You don't know. You believe it, but you don't know. Therefore you could be wrong, right?

--A

[Fist and Faith]

He knows, because if we had, we would agree with him. It is not possible to come to different conclusions than he has if we seriously think about it.

[rusmeister]

I really believe most people haven't.

And that assumption is the downfall of every discussion we have with you. *shrug* How do you know I haven't?

You don't know. You believe it, but you don't know. Therefore you could be wrong, right?

--A

Not every thought is aimed specifically at you, Av. If the shoe fits, wear it. if not, don't.
I said "most people" - that gives me wiggle room for a smaller number of people who have.

[rusmeister]

He knows, because if we had, we would agree with him. It is not possible to come to different conclusions than he has if we seriously think about it.

Fist, I deal every day with lots of people telling me I'm wrong. I deal with it. Why can't you?

In any fairly large and talkative community such as a university, there is always the danger that those who think alike should gravitate together into ‘coteries’ where they will henceforth encounter opposition only in the emasculated form of rumor that the outsiders say thus and thus. The absent are easily refuted, complacent dogmatism thrives, and differences of opinion are embittered by group hostility. Each group hears not the best, but the worst, that the other groups can say.

[Fist and Faith]

You don't deal with it any better than I do. How many times have you said,
"I won't respond to this.
...
Except to say this..."

And how many times have you said you were done arguing with me, then gone another 10 rounds?

But I would stop with you, if you understood the argument. It's ok to agree to disagree. I'm telling you that I see no reason to believe what you believe, but I have reason to believe what I believe. Maybe someday I'll see reason to believe what you believe, but there's been no reason yet.

OTOH, you say I can't believe what I believe. It is impossible. I either did not truly think about it, or I have "bad mental thinking." Your argument is akin to saying there are no buildings over five stories tall.
"I'm in a 20-story building now."
"No, you're not. It's impossible for such a building to exist."
"You're wrong, because I'm in one right this second."
"No, you're not."
There are at least a few of us here who are in 20-story buildings. Telling us we are not is ignoring reality in order to keep your worldview intact.

Or, as I said long ago, I may not be able to convince you that 2+2=4, but I'm gonna try to convince you that we're talking about math! You think you're exposing our coterie to Truth that we can't see. But you're not. You're saying 2+2=a bushel of potatoes.

FWIW, I have come to understand your/the OC's beliefs a lot better than I did before you and I began talking, 83 years ago. But that doesn't change my opinion of those beliefs. I better understand how you feel about homosexuality and homosexual acts, and the difference between them in regards to what is a sin. However, I think that morality is wrong. Yes, wrong for God to feel that way, and to set up the whole system that way.

I better understand the Church sources of your faith. But I think, for example, Tradition is just a rationalization for hanging onto attitudes that are wrong and harmful. That some guy 1,500 years ago decided Book X, Verse Y means ___, and people decided to follow that decision for the last 1,500 years, does not mean that Book X, Verse Y means ___. It just means that guy's decision is when that Tradition started. Book X, Verse Y can be interpreted in other ways. You/the OC simply don't accept those other interpretations. Fine. You're welcome to your interpretation. But it's not the one-and-only objectively accurate interpretation. It's just the one you've chosen to follow.

And then there's repeated questions about this and that, which are answered in the most vague, meaningless ways.

So when there's a discussion about atheist children, and the answers they are given, and the answers they discover on their own, telling us we're wrong for not giving them your/the OC's answers is about as meaningful as... Not sure what the best analogy is that is not overly insulting. But whatever it is, that's it. Give us a break, willya?

[High Lord Tolkien]

I'm going to back to how parents can or can not influence their kids into religion.
This thread reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a guy in school. He told me he was a Born again Christian as were his parents before him.
I thought about it for a few moments and had to ask him...your parents were "born again", that they had a spiritual rebirth and "found" Jesus but you were born into it. that you didn't have the "born again" aspect. that you were conditioned from the beginning.
He didn't really like what I was saying and said something about there being special rules or teachings for children.

I always thought that odd/sad.
A person can't "find" what was never unknown or lost to them.
His parents had the life changing revelation not him.

[Cybrweez]

Yes rus, I hear you. I think the hopelessness of some battles was brought home to me on pragcap, an MMT blog, recently. The author, CR, constantly uses a link to an intro of MMT, and an intro of how the US monetary system works, when he comes across people who don't understand. I feel I almost have the url memorized I've seen it so much. But you'll still see people spout something completely wrong, who are regulars on the site. And a recent comment made it clear to me, brought home Planck's quote I left in US Debt thread - our mind deceives us. Evidence is not the issue, "proving" something is the fad of today, but not the issue.

The commenter claimed CR could only used the "ignorance card" for so long, but MMT still doesn't prove "this", whatever it was. Yes, intelligent people can read an intro about some topic, turn around, and start posting comments that show they don't get it. Their response? Well, that's how I see it. But the author is telling you its this way. No, I believe its really saying this.

You can't combat such ignorance. I want to tell CR just don't even respond, it only encourages. You have to be strong and leave it alone.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I've always thought it a funny turn of phrase.... that Jesus is so hopelessly lost that people must find him over and over again, all over the place.

dw

[Cybrweez]

I always thought that odd/sad.
A person can't "find" what was never unknown or lost to them.
His parents had the life changing revelation not him.

Now that's a great thought. I totally agree. I think about that sometimes, b/c I'm in the same boat, somewhat anyway. My mom became a believer when I was too young to remember, altho my dad never has. So I did grow up (for the most part - like many gave it up and returned) believing the Bible was true. But in reality, I've never really understood what I was saved from, never really "fell far from the tree". I can see a difference when someone who's been through stuff you wouldn't wish on your enemy, knowing it was what they thought they wanted, then come to believe Jesus forgives all that, having an understanding, not in the mind, but heart, that I don't believe I could ever have.

[Cybrweez]

I've always thought it a funny turn of phrase.... that Jesus is so hopelessly lost that people must find him over and over again, all over the place.

dw

Yea, I can see that. Of course, when you lose a key, the key itself is not "lost", you just can't see it.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

You can't combat such ignorance. I want to tell CR just don't even respond, it only encourages. You have to be strong and leave it alone.

Without trying to defend the truly ignorant, I feel compelled to point out that the analogy between MMT and OC faith is not a very good one. MMT at least can be objectively measured, despite the opinions that can be given about it, even if economics is a horribly complex topic, it's discussion points are rock solid when compared to faith. Faith, boiled down to its essence, is a matter of opinion.
Yes, there are many of us (me included, I'm sure) that will continually and perhaps mistakenly hold information about the practices of Traditional faiths that can be proven untrue, or biased versions of facts...but the foundational premise is still 'God said so' no matter what the forefathers of the faith decided and recorded whenever. That the faithful forefathers did this is a matter of historical fact, which can be debated at our peril. However, the premise of 'God said so' is still a castle built in the air. It can be a pretty one, for sure...well, unless it happens to be telling you that you are going to Hell unless you change nearly everything you do or think. Then it can sound more like masochism. But of course, like faith itself, that is a matter of opinion.

dw

[Orlion]

Within the science community, what Planck said doesn't happen as often as you seem to think it does. It's actually pretty rare. Case in points:
1) Newton. 'Nuff said on that
2) James Clerk Maxwell, the Newton of Electromagnetisum
3) Albert Einstien.
4) Darwin vs. Lord Kelvin - According to Kelvin's thermodynamic calculations, the solar system couldn't have lasted long enough to allow evolution to happen. In the early 20th century, Kelvin was an old man when he heard about radiation , the discovery and taking to accounting of which would make resulting thermodynamic calculations agree with the time period predicted by geology and evolutionary processes. Lord Kelvin did not dispute these findings.
5) Rutherford's discovery of the proton nucleus.
6) Despite there being debates about it among prominent scientists of the time, Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Schrödinger, and others received widespread recognition for their work in developing quantum mechanics within their lifetimes.

To say that science progresses only when the older generation dies is erroneous. It progresses when new techniques enable a new understanding of the observation of the world around us.

Dukka's post all ready shows why comparing any religion with science is incorrect, so I shan't repeat

[Zarathustra]

My dear Orlion, what can you do when someone reduces all intelligent discussion to "You believe in fairy tales"? There is only so much you can say to such people. As long as they know next-to-nothing of the long history of my faith, in detail, there is nothing I can say to them. If they begin to learn exactly who John Chrysostom was, read some Alexander Men' or Alexander Schmemann, saw that - "Hey, these guys are actually quite reasonable and have thought about a lot of the same things I think about!", then maybe vistas might open for communication. But against uninformed dogma that knows only the fragmented local version of what it rails against? Can't do it, sir.

For my part, I reach a point where I give up. Seriously, its not really debate, but spewing of more stuff. I've seen the same from harbinger in the US Debt thread. I asked what's the problem w/the debt, as have others, and there's no answer. Rather, a friend says MMT is bunk. Then the next day a post about how terrible the debt is. Still, we're clueless about what the problem is.

I love Jesus' saying, don't cast your pearl before swine. Its hard to step away, you constantly want the last word, but I'm learning you just have to pick your battles. Now, this could be construed as the last word, so please, someone throw out something.

You (and others) could just refrain from polluting a thread about my children with your dogma. This was never intended to be a debate thread. I just had an interesting (to me) anecdote about my kids that I thought I'd share. If it speaks to you, fine. If it doesn't, no one asked you to post. In fact, I specifically asked (nicely) that all the off-topic debating be taken somewhere else. A reasonable request, I think. But rudeness, arrogance, and complete disregard for my reasonable request prevailed, and now you're complaining about the lack of a civilized debate?? That's like jumping onto a tennis court with a sword and whining because someone pulls out a gun and tells you get the fuck off the court. This was never a sword fight, despite the Christians here wanting to make it into one.

[[Syl]]

What do atheist children use to get over an attack of the heebie jeebies?

Reason, or at least learning to accept the world as it is.

My son is 8. He likes scary movies, though we keep it to more appropriate stuff like The Haunting. No slasher films or anything that has excessive bad language or sex (he liked Dawn of the Dead, though we did have to skip a few scenes). He loves the paranormal stuff - Ghost Hunters, Paranormal Investigations, whatever, even with me telling him it's a bunch of crap, scientifically speaking, if not an outright hoax.

He's worked himself up about ghosts at night once, but it only took about five minutes to explain: a) it's not real b) if it is real, there's not a single verifiable report of someone being hurt by it in our entire recorded history, so he's probably pretty safe, and c) I'm right across the hall if he needs me. Nightmares, of which he's had pretty few, are not much different. Just a simple, "Look, this is real. That stuff wasn't. Think about something else as you go back to sleep."

I remember when I was a kid turning off the light switch and trying to get into bed real fast and otherwise being slightly scared of the dark. Not my kid. He can sleep in pitch darkness, with the door closed, no TV on or any of that crap (not that he has one in his room), and not make a peep about it. I like to think that's the benefit of not growing up believing in things that don't really exist.

As far as religion goes, we've made our views on the belief in God or Satan figures pretty clear, but we've also let him know he's free to make up his own mind. Growing up in the South, it's impossible to avoid religion, where the first question people ask you is "Where do you go to church?" We went to the Unitarian Universalist church here a few times, but we just didn't fit in all that well. We try to raise him under our own brand of secular humanism, though I think a little bit of Christianity has sunk in, since he said he believes in "a god" who made the universe, though "not the Devil or any of that stuff." He thinks it's silly, and this coming from a kid who only recently learned that Santa's not real and has no problem playing along for the smaller kids.

[Vraith]

Something Syl said indirectly led me to wondering, Z:
How often does that stuff come up with your kids [stuff like the original post]?
My impression of your part of the world...only anecdotal and from driving through the area a few times...is that, much like my original home, churches and bumper-stickers, and billboards, and everyone you meet, and all their kids...honestly, I'm the only non-religious person anybody in town has ever met face to face...non-believers are just a rumor to them. [only a slight exaggeration].
I'd have guessed you have to deal with it pretty much constantly.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Hey Z, meant to comment on the original post shortly after you posted it. This was (part of) my reaction to it:

Your parents really ladened you with guilt and shame, and you were determined to revoke this in your own parenting. Sounds like you're enjoying the sweet taste of success-- hearing words you could never have planned out of your own kids' mouths.

THAT aspect is just something I just can freely rejoice over with you.
Especially given how often people will say "I'll never be like that;" and then we grow into the very thing we hate in spite of it all.

... but for giving my son the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God had the right idea: such knowledge isn't meant for humans. We--and especially our children--should never have had to bear such guilt.

I find it fascinating that you say this in this way-- but don't worry; I'm not going to read too much into your words there. Interesting resonances; some of which I think I get, and some of which I bet I don't.

He's a very good kid.

Sounds like you really love and treasure your kid.
Being able to be a parent is so awe-inspiring; and yet the fact that our decisions will impact our kids in such real ways ...for myself, I can think of few things more intimidating than that knowledge.

So, from someone who disagrees with you about some pretty critical things: I appreciate that you shared that.

If you add another one (like you considered doing), would you like, make the post all bold or a different color or something? And update the thread title? (say, "Atheist Children- 2 reflections")

[rusmeister]

My dear Orlion, what can you do when someone reduces all intelligent discussion to "You believe in fairy tales"? There is only so much you can say to such people. As long as they know next-to-nothing of the long history of my faith, in detail, there is nothing I can say to them. If they begin to learn exactly who John Chrysostom was, read some Alexander Men' or Alexander Schmemann, saw that - "Hey, these guys are actually quite reasonable and have thought about a lot of the same things I think about!", then maybe vistas might open for communication. But against uninformed dogma that knows only the fragmented local version of what it rails against? Can't do it, sir.

For my part, I reach a point where I give up. Seriously, its not really debate, but spewing of more stuff. I've seen the same from harbinger in the US Debt thread. I asked what's the problem w/the debt, as have others, and there's no answer. Rather, a friend says MMT is bunk. Then the next day a post about how terrible the debt is. Still, we're clueless about what the problem is.

I love Jesus' saying, don't cast your pearl before swine. Its hard to step away, you constantly want the last word, but I'm learning you just have to pick your battles. Now, this could be construed as the last word, so please, someone throw out something.

You (and others) could just refrain from polluting a thread about my children with your dogma. This was never intended to be a debate thread. I just had an interesting (to me) anecdote about my kids that I thought I'd share. If it speaks to you, fine. If it doesn't, no one asked you to post. In fact, I specifically asked (nicely) that all the off-topic debating be taken somewhere else. A reasonable request, I think. But rudeness, arrogance, and complete disregard for my reasonable request prevailed, and now you're complaining about the lack of a civilized debate?? That's like jumping onto a tennis court with a sword and whining because someone pulls out a gun and tells you get the fuck off the court. This was never a sword fight, despite the Christians here wanting to make it into one.

Z, I'm done arguing. I am thoroughly weary of talking to people who never really hear what I say. But if you had titled this thread "My Experiences with My Children", then you would have a better basis for complaining. (This is the problem of just wanting to hear from people who will approve of your ideas and exclude those that do not). You pretty specifically titled the thread "atheist" children, with a clear assumption that your children are more enlightened for not being exposed to "religious dogma". What could you expect any Christian to say??? Or you should write in huge letters at the top, "atheist response only, please" or "Christians need not respond" - not that that's discriminatory or anything; I'm sure it is a broad and open-minded approach.

[rusmeister]

You don't deal with it any better than I do. How many times have you said,
"I won't respond to this.
...
Except to say this..."

And how many times have you said you were done arguing with me, then gone another 10 rounds?

But I would stop with you, if you understood the argument. It's ok to agree to disagree. I'm telling you that I see no reason to believe what you believe, but I have reason to believe what I believe. Maybe someday I'll see reason to believe what you believe, but there's been no reason yet.

OTOH, you say I can't believe what I believe. It is impossible. I either did not truly think about it, or I have "bad mental thinking." Your argument is akin to saying there are no buildings over five stories tall.
"I'm in a 20-story building now."
"No, you're not. It's impossible for such a building to exist."
"You're wrong, because I'm in one right this second."
"No, you're not."
There are at least a few of us here who are in 20-story buildings. Telling us we are not is ignoring reality in order to keep your worldview intact.

Or, as I said long ago, I may not be able to convince you that 2+2=4, but I'm gonna try to convince you that we're talking about math! You think you're exposing our coterie to Truth that we can't see. But you're not. You're saying 2+2=a bushel of potatoes.

FWIW, I have come to understand your/the OC's beliefs a lot better than I did before you and I began talking, 83 years ago. But that doesn't change my opinion of those beliefs. I better understand how you feel about homosexuality and homosexual acts, and the difference between them in regards to what is a sin. However, I think that morality is wrong. Yes, wrong for God to feel that way, and to set up the whole system that way.

I better understand the Church sources of your faith. But I think, for example, Tradition is just a rationalization for hanging onto attitudes that are wrong and harmful. That some guy 1,500 years ago decided Book X, Verse Y means ___, and people decided to follow that decision for the last 1,500 years, does not mean that Book X, Verse Y means ___. It just means that guy's decision is when that Tradition started. Book X, Verse Y can be interpreted in other ways. You/the OC simply don't accept those other interpretations. Fine. You're welcome to your interpretation. But it's not the one-and-only objectively accurate interpretation. It's just the one you've chosen to follow.

And then there's repeated questions about this and that, which are answered in the most vague, meaningless ways.

So when there's a discussion about atheist children, and the answers they are given, and the answers they discover on their own, telling us we're wrong for not giving them your/the OC's answers is about as meaningful as... Not sure what the best analogy is that is not overly insulting. But whatever it is, that's it. Give us a break, willya?

I've already said a couple of dozen times now that I fully accept that you DO believe what you believe. I admit that you can believe yourself to be in a 20-story building - as Neo, er, Mr Anderson did, and that is the analogy I would use. Yes, you DO believe those things. It is NOT impossible to believe them and I do not say that it is. But you've chosen the blue pill, so enjoy your world view!
I do really wish you the best, even in that.