The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[alzan]

The advice given about raising a "well-educated, thoughtful, ethical, socially responsible, environmentally aware" child is what every parent tries to do to the best of their ability...however, "above all, godless children"?

"Above all"?

How can that be more important than the preceding attributes? If a "well-educated" person would by default be irreligious (as preached as gospel in the atheist community at large), then why does teaching kids that God doesn't exists take bigger importance?

I could see if they said "above all, skeptical children"...that would be more in tune with what atheists say they really are, but they'd rather think for their kids, and raise them to be "atheist kids". (See the Title of the book)

http://www.atheistparents.org/recommended-books/interview-with-lance-gregorchuk/

Why is it good advice to label a child an "atheist"? I thought atheist parents were proponents of letter their kids choose for themselves?

Regardless of what you suggest their motive is, I seriously doubt atheistparents.org makes parents label their children as atheists. The website (and book I imagine) is a guide only.

What's wrong with raising a child as atheist or agnostic?

The only one who wishes to label a child an atheist is you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you understand the difference between raising children in a religion and raising children outside of a religion? Atheism is not a tradition. If I never introduce my children to religion, never take them to church, never mention God, etc... that is not a tradition.

My point is extremely simple, here...not taking your kids to Church is raising them in a non-religious home. This will continue throughout their generations (though not traditionally, so I agree).

So if they're asked by someone: "why don't you go to Church"? The answer would be "because I didn't grow up in a religious home and never went to church", not "I objectively investigated religion and found out it was false so I do not attend Church".

Parents not going to Church would almost inevitably mean the children won't.

Call it a "way of life' for lack of a better term. But the results are the same -- you do (or don't do) what your parents did (or didn't do).

I agree...tradition wasn't the word to use.

 

[alkemyst]

Many people become religious the closer they get to their mortality whether raised that way or not.

 

[Retro Rob]

Regardless of what you suggest their motive is, I seriously doubt atheistparents.org makes parents label their children as atheists. The website (and book I imagine) is a guide only

I'm just going off what the book says.

What's wrong with raising a child as atheist or agnostic?

Nothing, as parents are free to raise their kids how they wish. Just pointing this out to those who object to "labeling" a kid.

The only one who wishes to label a child an atheist is you.

I didn't author the book donning the title: "Being an atheist kid in a world full of gods".

 

[Retro Rob]

<--- this is the crux of his argument.....if the Atheist website does not agree with what JD thinks then it is irrelevant. That`s convenient....

We call that sort of hand-waving "denial".

 

[alzan]

I'm just going off what the book says.

Nothing, as parents are free to raise their kids how they wish. Just pointing this out to those who object to "labeling" a kid.

I didn't author the book donning the title: "Being an atheist kid in a world full of gods".

He's describing an aspect of the child.

He's not saying "You atheist!!" or even "You theist!!" to a child as a way of generalizing, stereotyping, complimenting or insulting.

 

[Retro Rob]

He's describing an aspect of the child.

He's not saying "You atheist!!" or even "You theist!!" to a child as a way of generalizing, stereotyping, complimenting or insulting.

Fair enough.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Actually, this doesn't seem to be correct. Einstein's general theory of relativity effectively removed the requirement that energy be conserved inherent in classical Newtonian physics. The latest cosmological theories about dark energy posit a constant density of it even as space continues to expand.

Conservation of energy is true. Here's why.

This really isn't on topic, but I want to point out this statement in the link you provided:

In general relativity conservation of energy-momentum is expressed with the aid of a stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.

 

[JD50]

We call that sort of hand-waving "denial".

Sad. Just 2 posts up you seemed to kind of get it.

 

[soulcougher73]

<--- this is the crux of his argument.....if the Atheist website does not agree with what JD thinks then it is irrelevant. That`s convenient....

It's fairly simple. What book do all Christians follow? easy right? What website do all atheists follow? You answered none? Tada

 

[Retro Rob]

Sad. Just 2 posts up you seemed to kind of get it.

Actually, I think you understood what I was saying from the jump but just chose to making it about "tradition" instead of the overall point that we are all products of how we were raised.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's fairly simple. What book do all Christians follow? easy right? What website do all atheists follow? You answered none? Tada

JD is an Atheists and JD has issues with the site that Retro Rob linked too.....
Just like various Christians would have issues with Christian sites that you might link too....

First of all you label all Christians as following a single book...that's not true at all.

Most Christians make reference to the Bible and believe it is the word of God.
Yet I have met and continue to meet Christians who use other materials to help them to understand what the Bible says, as well as use various websites to help them deepen their own personal faith in God!

Yet there are also people who without any references to the Bible or to Christianity will tell you they believe in God and have a relationship with God...explain that??

What website Do Atheists use -- they use many websites to reference Atheism and make a case for Atheism.....
Atheism also has individuals who we will call leaders of the Atheism movement such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_(activists_and_educators)

There also Leaders of the Atheist movement or religion -- Famous leaders of atheists: Madelyn Murray O'Hair, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins.

Many Atheist feel the need to proselytize or educate others who might believe in God............

 

[alkemyst]

There are HUGE debates among Christians what is the most relevant / valid Bible.

This was one of the first battles over religion in our schools.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There are HUGE debates among Christians what is the most relevant / valid Bible.

This was one of the first battles over religion in our schools.

Yes and the Catholic Bible is I believe 68 books as the Protestant Bible is 66 books....
Then we won`t even go into core issues such as Abortion...gay marriage......water baptism as opposed to dprinkling...speaking in tongues...etc.....

 

[SlowSpyder]

Your giving Atheists more credit than they deserve...critical thinking or perhaps they don`t have the Faith to believe in God!!

I have no more reason to have faith in your god than I do zeus or ra or any other deity. When you look at how religious belief seems to be more of a product of where you live and your upbringing it is hard for me to see any religion as any sort of divine truth.

 

[JD50]

Actually, I think you understood what I was saying from the jump but just chose to making it about "tradition" instead of the overall point that we are all products of how we were raised.

No, there is a difference and words have meaning. Sending your child to Sunday school and church, praying before dinner, etc... is not the same as just not ever discussing god or religion. I said your website is irrelevant because if someone is using a website to raise their child as an atheist that is completely different and that's not the kind of atheist that I'm talking about. I'm not sure what your point is about people being a product of their environment, just about everyone understands that. The point is that you have to be taught to believe in a god and follow a specific religion, you don't have to be taught to not believe or not be religious.

I don't even bother responding to JEDI anymore, 90% of his posts are nothing but incoherent babble.

I've never heard of that website before, I have no idea who that first guy is that he mentions, and I became an atheist long before I heard the names Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. You two seem to think that atheists follow these "atheist leaders" and atheist websites like religious people follow the bible and their leaders. Good luck finding a Catholic that has never heard of the pope or the bible.

 

[JD50]

I have no more reason to have faith in your god than I do zeus or ra or any other deity. When you look at how religious belief seems to be more of a product of where you live and your upbringing it is hard for me to see any religion as any sort of divine truth.

Exactly. When I first really thought about that is when I finally left the Catholic church and considered myself non-denominational. Atheism followed not too long after.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, there is a difference and words have meaning.

Of course they do.

Sending your child to Sunday school and church, praying before dinner, etc... is not the same as just not ever discussing god or religion
I said your website is irrelevant because if someone is using a website to raise their child as an atheist that is completely different and that's not the kind of atheist that I'm talking about.

I also understand that those aren't the same. But my point of the site was to dispel this myth that atheists don't condition their kids to be atheists -- if you ask your average atheist, they'll say this sort of conditioning doesn't exists.

I'm not saying every atheist does this, or atheism is general does it...that just its nowhere near "unheard of".

I became an atheist long before I heard the names Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. You two seem to think that atheists follow these "atheist leaders" and atheist websites like religious people follow the bible and their leaders. Good luck finding a Catholic that has never heard of the pope or the bible.

I didn't say you listened to Harris, etc, but their books are best-sellers, and I don't think religious people are the only ones buying them.

Just sayin', those guys aren't selling millions of copies of their books because no one is following them.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Exactly. When I first really thought about that is when I finally left the Catholic church and considered myself non-denominational. Atheism followed not too long after.

One day I was no longer afraid to anger the jealous and vengeful god I believed in at the time and decided I would question if my christian beliefs made sense. I looked at it and saw just another institution designed to keep people in fear and pull in money, all over a god that has left no evidence of his existence. A god that people believe in but cannot offer anything convincing as far as why their god is the right one other than suggesting just to have faith (which to me is just a way of saying don't think about it, just believe it because you want to and it is comforting).

 

[alzan]

Of course they do.



I also understand that those aren't the same. But my point of the site was to dispel this myth that atheists don't condition their kids to be atheists -- if you ask your average atheist, they'll say this sort of conditioning doesn't exists.

I'm not saying every atheist does this, or atheism is general does it...that just its nowhere near "unheard of".



I didn't say you listened to Harris, etc, but their books are best-sellers, and I don't think religious people are the only ones buying them.

Just sayin', those guys aren't selling millions of copies of their books because no one is following them.

Bestseller is a somewhat manipulated term; for instance, if you sell 9,000 copies of your book in the first week of it's release it'll make the NY Times best seller list, however it only takes 3,000 sales to make the Wall Street Journal's best seller list.

Also, I think that's only books sold by the publishing company to book stores, not actual individual sales to customers. There may be cartons of various "best-sellers" sitting in a Barnes and Noble or Amazon warehouse waiting to be sent to the stores for individual sale.

 

[JD50]

Of course they do.



I also understand that those aren't the same. But my point of the site was to dispel this myth that atheists don't condition their kids to be atheists -- if you ask your average atheist, they'll say this sort of conditioning doesn't exists.


I'm not saying every atheist does this, or atheism is general does it...that just its nowhere near "unheard of".

There's no point in arguing edge cases, that is the exception not the rule.

I didn't say you listened to Harris, etc, but their books are best-sellers, and I don't think religious people are the only ones buying them.

Just sayin', those guys aren't selling millions of copies of their books because no one is following them.

Reading a book that someone writes doesn't mean that you follow them.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Bestseller is a somewhat manipulated term; for instance, if you sell 9,000 copies of your book in the first week of it's release it'll make the NY Times best seller list, however it only takes 3,000 sales to make the Wall Street Journal's best seller list.

Also, I think that's only books sold by the publishing company to book stores, not actual individual sales to customers. There may be cartons of various "best-sellers" sitting in a Barnes and Noble or Amazon warehouse waiting to be sent to the stores for individual sale.

rofl@alzan trying to explain what best seller actually means...need an atheist web site??? hahaha

 

[mikeymikec]

I also understand that those aren't the same. But my point of the site was to dispel this myth that atheists don't condition their kids to be atheists -- if you ask your average atheist, they'll say this sort of conditioning doesn't exists.

Both are sweeping generalisations (atheists or theists conditioning their kids).

I personally wish to steadily educate my children as to the choices available and let them make up their minds; they won't go into the world without knowing a few non-debatable facts about the major religions (ie. traditions of those religions and/or things they believe). Ignorance is the last thing that future generations need if general acceptance of others' beliefs is to become the norm.

However, I can think of two points that makes the sweeping generalisation a little more valid regarding theists conditioning their kids.

1) With most religions that I'm aware of, going to some sort of special building for worship on a regular basis is considered something that theists should do.

2) Catholicism in particular says that if you don't baptise your kids before they die, they go to Hell.

Point 1 definitely is going to play a role in conditioning. Point 2 in terms of conditioning is off the scale compared to point 1.

PS - I'm not saying "therefore the sweeping generalisation is valid for theists". IMO there's more evidence to suggest that theists condition their kids than atheists.

 

[crashtestdummy]

This really isn't on topic, but I want to point out this statement in the link you provided:

The whole notion of this argument about whether the conservation of energy is true under all circumstances presupposes we know a lot more about the universe than we actually do. We have observational evidence that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light some 13 billion years ago, that either causality or locality is broken, and that either much of physics is wrong, or we don't know about the vast majority of material in the universe. Given that all three of these observations break major points of understanding in physics, whether or not energy has always been conserved seems like just another one of those.

Of course they do.



I also understand that those aren't the same. But my point of the site was to dispel this myth that atheists don't condition their kids to be atheists -- if you ask your average atheist, they'll say this sort of conditioning doesn't exists.

I'm not saying every atheist does this, or atheism is general does it...that just its nowhere near "unheard of".



I didn't say you listened to Harris, etc, but their books are best-sellers, and I don't think religious people are the only ones buying them.

Just sayin', those guys aren't selling millions of copies of their books because no one is following them.

Certainly a child growing up in an atheist home is more likely to become atheist than those raised in a religious home. It wasn't so much that my parents disparaged the notion of believing in God. Rather, God was simply not a topic of conversation at all. My biblical education as a child was being tossed a bible at 16 and being told by my dad "you should probably understand what people are saying when they reference this."

If our intent is to make all our children atheist, though, we're not particularly great at it.

I think where atheism/humanism as a social movement (rather than an ontological position) is currently weakest is its focus on individualism. There is a sense of cross-generational and broad socio-economic community available in religious organizations that is simply not there for atheists (or is quite small and rare). This is in large part because most atheists are people who came from religious backgrounds and broke from it through their sense of individualism. I think that as atheism becomes more mainstream, though, we'll see the formation of humanist organizations that replace much of the social function of religion.

 

[witeken]

The whole notion of this argument about whether the conservation of energy is true under all circumstances presupposes we know a lot more about the universe than we actually do.

Here's a quote from Lawrence Krauss' book Fear of Physics:

---------
But the diehard inventor may say to me: “How do I know for sure that energy is conserved? What makes this law so special that it cannot be violated? All existing experiments may support this idea, but maybe there is a way around it. They thought Einstein was crazy too!”

There is some merit in this objection. We should not take anything on faith. So all these books tell undergraduates that Energy Is Conserved (they even capitalize it). And it is claimed that this is a universal law of nature, true for energy in all its forms. But while this is a very useful property of nature, the important issue is Why? Emmy Noether gave us the answer, and it disappoints me that many physics texts don’t bother going this far. If you don’t explain why such a wonderous quality exists, it encourages the notion that physics is based on some set of mystical rules laid down on high, which must be memorized and to which only the initiated have access.

So why is energy conserved? Noether’s theorem tells us that it must be related to some symmetry of nature. And I remind you that a symmetry of nature tells us that if we make some transformation, everything still looks the same. Energy conservation is, in fact, related to the very symmetry that makes physics possible. We believe the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow as they are today. If they weren’t, we would have to have a different physics text for every day of the week.

So we believe, and this is to some extent an assumption—but, as I shall show, a testable one—that all the laws of nature are invariant, that is, they remained unchanged, under time translation. This is a fancy way of saying that they are the same no matter when you measure them. But if we accept this for the moment, then we can show rigorously (that is, mathematically) that there must exist a quantity, which we can call energy, that is constant over time. Thus, as new laws of nature are discovered, we do not have to worry at each stage whether they will lead to some violation of the law of conservation of energy. All we have to assume is that the underlying physical principles don’t change with time.
---------

We have observational evidence that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light some 13 billion years ago,

Sure, just like space is expanding faster than the speed of light right now. Space can do whatever it wants, we (things travelling trough space) can't.

and that either much of physics is wrong,

Much of physics is not wrong. Physics explains how the universe works. We can't know for sure if our theories are completely right, but as long as they as they agree with experiments, they're good enough. When new stuff is discovered, theories have to be changed, like Einstein did, for example. But that doesn't specifically mean that Newton was wrong, just not accurate enough.

or we don't know about the vast majority of material in the universe.

So what? We are humans, we don't know everything... yet.

Given that all three of these observations break major points of understanding in physics, whether or not energy has always been conserved seems like just another one of those.

Well, that's why we need scientific research .