Atheism

Originally posted by Digi

Now, the question:
Is it acceptable to indoctrinate a child into any religious belief? This includes atheism; I'm not holding my beliefs to a different standard. Because, make no mistake, raising a child as any religion is indeed indoctrination. They don't possess the critical faculties to believe otherwise until they're much older.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think where parents cross the line is when they make it clear that they want the child to believe a certain thing and use either pressure or incentives to keep them in that camp. it seems kind of impossible to raise kids without passing on some of your subjective beliefs.

I certainly have not done that with my children. I, at times, talk to them about other cultures and beliefs (I have talked to them about animism, Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, different types of Christianity, Greek and Roman paganism (got to read to them from a book about that, actually... they liked the stories) and various creation myths from different cultures). And they are not forced to go to church: always asked.

If one of them wanted to stay home, one of us (the parents) would stay home (they are not old enough to stay home alone). My son seems like he is going to be pretty religious even if he doesn't want to be a Mormon like I am. My daughter is probably too young to decide.

Anyway, not all parents enjoy the indoctrination of their children. I never want my children to feel like church is a must. "God" or things like that should never be crammed down children's throats.

Case and point: I was thinking about taking my children to a mediation session at the Buddha Mind Monastery here in OKC:

http://www.ctbuddhamind.org/classes.php

I'll wait until they are a bit older, though. hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Case and point: I was thinking about taking my children to a meditation session at the Buddha Mind Monastery here in OKC:

At least, this is how it would work on my planet.

Happy Turkey Day to all!

Originally posted by dadudemon
No one that you actually want to read your posts are going to do it. Only people that agree with you are going to read your posts...except for me. 🙂

I don't do this for the discussion so much anymore. We all sort of know where we stand. But it helps me to elucidate my thoughts by putting them here, and also to see if there are gaping holes in some of my ideas. Like, we're beyond the point of ever agreeing on "big" ideas like our stance on God, afterlife, etc. but there can still be a honing of more nuanced and less "big picture" opinions, even with those who agree on the big stuff.

I don't really have much to add, I just wanted to know people's opinion on this video.

YouTube video

lol, relax Mindset. I don't have time for protracted responses right now. I'm about to do holiday stuff. I'm not pulling a ushome.

I don't know what you're talking about.

he's afraid people will think he is just spamming videos with no intent to debate, ala ushomefree

Oh, ok, I think he is under some preconceived notion about my post.

Not sure why he's telling me to relax.

Anyway, opinions on the video are welcomed. I came across it while trying to find videos on moral philosophy.

Aren't you a phil major, Mindset?

No, Engineering.

Which kind of engineering? I have a few friends who are in electronic and computer engineering--apparently it leaves them with no time for anything beyond their studies.

Mechanical.

Basically, yea, depends on how you manage your time and how easily you are able to understand the info. EE/CE is more abstract, so it may take more time, Idk.

Originally posted by Mindset
Mechanical.

Basically, yea, depends on how you manage your time and how easily you are able to understand the info. EE/CE is more abstract, so it may take more time, Idk.

I'm just glad I'm good at writing, if I weren't I'd probably have ended up going into some kind of engineering or law and I'd be miserable right now.

Well, good luck anyway.

Originally posted by Mindset
I don't really have much to add, I just wanted to know people's opinion on this video.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Mindset
Oh, ok, I think he is under some preconceived notion about my post.

Not sure why he's telling me to relax.

Anyway, opinions on the video are welcomed. I came across it while trying to find videos on moral philosophy.

I thought you were aping my post. My bad.

On the video, he needs to read up on some philosophers that have tackled the subject with more nuance. Dan Dennett is probably the most famous, but hardly the only one. There are numerous valid paths to morality as an atheist that are internally consistent.

I think the video falls on its face most fundamentally when trying to say that it's impossible to say that anything should be valued over anything else. Happiness, by its very definition, is better for any sentient creature than any kind of suffering. Any attempt at a loophole - maybe someone who enjoys "suffering" - is defeated by the admission that this enjoyment is in fact a form of happiness...it's just through a means that very few would enjoy. I don't think it's a subjective opinion to say that this is universally true. So right there is a valid assessment of the human condition upon which we can base a system of morality.

There are others, of course. That's just one.

He briefly touches on something that I agree with - that no one is at fault for their beliefs or actions. The universe, as far as we can tell, is entirely deterministic (or naturalistic, as it's sometimes called). Therefore, based on my earlier statements, something can be right or wrong, but no one is "at fault" for their actions, as they are entirely determined. Any punishment in such a system - which would be much different from our current system of justice - is not punitive but preventative to protect others. A tricky distinction, and other are more eloquent than I at talking about it. I can provides resources if needed.

Anyway, I think the poster of the video is suffering from a sort of intellectual superiority complex. The system I outlined above isn't the only with a possible logical justification in an atheist system, but I realize that. The video's initial assertion - that atheism MUST lead to nihilism - right there should raise skeptical warning flags that this guy has closed himself off to alternatives. He's not saying "here's what I think based on my analysis" but rather "here's how it is, other atheists." Limited, at best, close-minded and condescending at worst.

That probably explains the dislike bar.

Originally posted by Digi
He's not saying "here's what I think based on my analysis" but rather "here's how it is, other atheists." Limited, at best, close-minded and condescending at worst.

Of course, I disagree. Your post feels like more of a theistic apologetic than a contradiction to the end result of moral nihilism.

He is also speaking to a specific form of atheist. Is that really your main complaint?

To your example of "suffering" and happiness. Those are are subjective values you have named. There is no reason to believe there is any utility beyond our natural evolutionary progression towards such values. You propose that there is some value there: there really isn't. You place the value of the sentient being as your directive: there is no reason to do so. It is arbitrary for you to do so. Basically, your argument is the same as some Christians argument for why the bible is true:

"Why do you believe that bible is the word of God?"

"Because it says it is."

Similarly:

"Why do you value happiness over suffering?"

"Because evolution made us that way."

The nihilist takes a step back and realizes that both are circular in reasoning. There is a level of understanding beyond both stances: each judgement is pretty much tautological/circular in reasoning. The next step is realizing than and just admitting there there is no point in value something over the other. There is nothing objective about those values. Enter Kant: deontology and the appeal to Objective (capital "O"😉.

Did not Kant tackle this argument of Hume's already? We are hardly covering new ground. I believe Kant referred to it as "Humean doubt".

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe Kant referred to it as "Humean doubt".

😂