I wouldn't have put it this way, but it's EXACTLY how I feel about the subject

[Remember Me]

[Glorfindel]

1. Recommend

Amen!

[nc4bo]

2. Someone has to tell it like it is. Blunt, to the point and truthful. nt

[Hotler]

3. k&r n/t

[Lucian]

4. I totally agree with that sign.

K&R

We need to see it everywhere.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Some people are total killjoys. nt

[Gregorian]

6. I LOVE IT!

I'm not an atheist. But I'm sick of the agenda religious people have. I've lost a very good friend over this. I can't talk with him because it always turns into some bullshit religious discussion.

Martin Luther King never did it.

[Thats my opinion]

7. I also agree----and

I would add atheism to the theme line.

However, in a forum titled "Religion and Theology," both are legitimate.

[rug]

8. You can easily substitute atheism for religion and have the same billboard.

[Deep13]

9. Can you give an example of atheists who are indoctrinating children...

...especially with threats of eternal damnation? Yes, yes, Stalin, Mao. Although they were not threatening eternal torment after one dies. I'm asking in the present tense and in particular in this country.

[rug]

10. Here's some.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/15/uk.schools1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/04/10/handling-children-who-are-not-atheists/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3501156/Primary-school-children-to-be-taught-atheism-in-Blackburn.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196063/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-atheists.html

You realize indoctrination is essentially a neutral term.

FWIW, I don't think teaching children about nonbelief or atheism is any worse or any better than teaching them about religion. Nor is an atheist summer camp any better or worse than a religious summer camp.

Your addition of hell and damnation is, of course, a red herring.

[cleanhippie]

11. Teaching a child "about" religion or non-belief is NOT the same as indoctrinating them.

Don't be so obtuse.


I am all in favor of teaching children ABOUT religion, and in fact, DO assist with a childrens religious education program at my UU Fellowship, but that is a FAR cry form what is done to children in churches and sunday schools and vacation bible schools across the country. Its not the same thing and you know it.

I know its not the same as you are used to, with the priest saying that his winky is gods gift and all, but teaching kids to ask questions, demand proof, question authority, and to think for themselves is what should be done. Don't you agree, rug?

[rug]

13. Are you sure?

You presume you are doing what you do at your UU fellowship in an objective manner. If you're not, you are communicating your view, opinion and approbation for the view you're communicating even as you communicate it. Kids are very perceptive about what adults approve and disapprove. And behave accordingly. Don't be so sure you're not "indoctrinating".

As to your question, that is part of the bundle we pass on to them, along with many other things. One of the pertinent questions in the area of belief and nonbelief is not only to demand proof, but to question the authority - and competence - of the proof.

[cleanhippie]

17. Yes, I'm quite sure.

Its unfortunate that you are unable to see past your hatred of those that dare to speak out against the horrible practices that affect the children of parents in your religion, and that teach children that they can make up their OWN mind about what they want to believe (or not to believe).

I realize that this is a foreign concept, but you can learn to deal with it.

[rug]

18. Lol.

Yup, you're a cool, objective rationalist. I'd enjoy seeing a video of you explaining atheism to children.

[cleanhippie]

22. Lol.

And you are not.

And I don't explain atheism to children, In fact, the word has never come up in our CRE program at all. Besides, what is there to explain? There is nothing to atheism other than non-belief. They are smart enough to figure that out on their own. Maybe you should try that with the kids in your church.

[rug]

24. You may find a new thread of interest.

"So what's your advice to parents?
"Dawkins: Explain to children never to believe anything without evidence"

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

12. Wow, so you're against giving children knowledge and letting them make decisions?

Furthermore, indoctrination is in no way a neutral term.

You cannot teach a child non-belief. You can only teach them about the plurality of beliefs available and let them do their own thing.

[rug]

14. That is too idiotic a response to what is written to make even a strawman.

[darkstar3]

15. You posted that pic

as an example of "indoctrination" which is an obvious negative in this subthread. I would call that an "idiotic response".

[rug]

16. If you read the link, that picture is more about the dishonest use of children than indoctrination.

I think there's a term for that.

[darkstar3]

19. But your post was not.

Your post was about indoctrination, specifically indoctrination by atheists, otherwise you weren't answering Deep13's question.

So which is it? Did you simply not answer the question, or did you answer the question with something so ridiculous that it makes you look like you're against teaching facts to children and letting them make their own choices?

[rug]

20. If you read the post, and the rest of the links, that's precisely what it's about.

[darkstar3]

21. So you didn't answer the question. Got it.

Moving on...

[rug]

23. Deo gratias.

[darkstar3]

25. Eas in crucem

[rug]

27. I'd be more impressed if you quoted Dante in its entirety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FScv89J6rro

At least it's not Battlestar Galactica.

[darkstar3]

28. Do I care?

If I told you what you'd have to do to impress me, would you give a fuck?

[Deep13]

31. There's a pretty big difference between learning ABOUT atheists...

...and indoctrinating children. Indoctrination is a positive action, not neutrality. And there is a pretty big difference between protecting children from indoctrination and indoctrinating them. Teaching critical reasoning skills and free thinking is not indoctrination. The absence of programming children to believe something that isn't real is not programming. And baldness is not a hair color. Besides, the goal is to tell children the truth about the world, not to remain neutral while a powerful, ancient, well-organized and skilled authoritarian system seeks to program children when they are too young to know the difference. If the claims of religion are true, then critical reasoning will give children the tools to find that truth when they are old enough to make up their own minds. And that sometimes--rarely, but sometime--happens as indicated by the pole someone posted in this forum.

Hell and damnation have been standard tools of religious indoctrination for centuries. Making children afraid works. It is central to the point, not a red herring. I'll stop bringing it up when the vatican and the rest of the churches admit that there is no hell.

[darkstar3]

29. The answer would appear to be "no".

[GeorgeGist]

30. Amen.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

32. I posted this a few days ago. The thread was locked. n/t