On a current thread, David from The AFA Inc. stated his belief that children are born as 'blank pages', as if to suggest we as parents might write their lives and their beliefs on our whim.

The children I raised, or so it seems to me, came into the world as themselves, each with different character that was apparent almost immediately. The fact that they have at times widely different beliefs and approaches to life as they have grown testifies to their inherent differentness.

Parenting was and is for me the art of allowing our kids to discover their talents, and their inner resources. The methods they adopt for the expression of interests and creativity is their business save one point. They know that they will loose my active support, but not my love if they follow paths where others get hurt or which places themselves in danger.

I am not asking for another turgid discussion on theism, but making an inquiry into how other posters see this question on their relationship with their children.

The press and even the odd regular poster here are quick to demonise our teenagers, but I find their self confidence and forthrightness very appealing. The hardest part of parenting for me is keeping quiet and allow them to make their own decisions and consequently, often enough their own mistakes, without assuming for myself their right to decide their own lives.

I'm not sure what use is a 16 yo unemployed semi-goth, semi-punk female drummer to the world, but really who am I to say?

palimpsest,

I actually have stated that humans have innate cooperative qualities when born. I have further explained that nurture can enhance or detract from intrinsic behaviour. Enhancing results from supplying love, safety and a broad education about existence. Detraction happens because of an absence of one or some of those ingredients and/or the repetitious ‘pushing’ of any narrow doctrine.

David

pal, you can have an opinion about female drummers, if you think members of society should connect with and contribute to the society that has educated and protects them. if you think you owe nothing to society, nor should the young people you help to raise. is that the case?

What is important to me is the content of my children's hearts and minds, or what is often described as character. When we say, "It's what's inside that coutns," we speak a simple but profound truth.

I've written on this topic in another post. Anyway here goes again...

We have growing agendas for raising our children. But while we are feverish about providing our children - every opportunity - from music lessons, tennis lessons, to a college or university degree, it seems that our job as parents is much simpler - and that is to raise a decent human being.

Decency might sound like a modest ambition, but in today's culture it is not so easy to achieve as we might think. Every parent I know lives with the uneasy sense that their children are growing up too fast, without clear values or a real code to live by. While we spin our wheels worrying about 'reading, writing, and arithmetic,' our children may be missing the 'real basics' like respect, loyalty, and a sense of fair play.

Survey after survey shows that children who will be the best educated and most privileged in human history, are too willing to do anything it takes to 'get ahead.'

Once I realised that collecting for the Red Cross once a year, and taking part in other 'fund-raising' activities, was not going to add to moral development, I started looking seriously for ways to help my children learn right from wrong, and to know that sometimes there is a decision to be made in the middle. My children, growing up were facing tough choices and complicated situations that could not be addressed with simple lectures on the values of kindness or isolated chats about standing up for one's beliefs.

I wanted to surround my children with a sturdy sensibility, a world view, and I wanted it to be different from the "Me" mentality of modern culture.

CONT'D

Even if television offered twenty-four hours of uplifting, intelligent fare each day, a sound bite on moral courage just does not penetrate. The medium delivers information in a flash - and then it is gone.

Stories found in books, by contrast, seep into our very being. We all have books that lifted the fog for us, caused the Great AHA!, and literally changed our lives. The printed word is pondered, and it is received only when the mind is fully engaged. Like no other medium it has the power to stay with us.

In my own case I learnt from biographies that even great individuals start out as everyday children.

Then there were the role models in fairy tales and legends and historical stories. Cinderella enchanted not because she got the prince but because she was cheerful and dignified even in unbearable circumstances. King Arthur showed what a noble deed looked like - and that there is such a thing as duty and sacrifice.

Great literature is not didactic, though it almost always instructs.
Literature that strains to instruct almost always fails. This is not to damn all books that are written in the realistic mode. A vast number of realistic books are written without a social agenda or the need to be explicit or titillating, and they are marvellous, humourous, powerful, disturbing, illuminating, everything one might want in a good read.

But, it does make sense to be aware of what your children are reading, and to make sure that the best books - including - classics old and new, are available to them.

I believe that books are still the most memorable artifact of childhood. They are not only good for the child, they are a family resource beyond anything that any medium has to offer. And to me, children's books remain what the best of them have always been, a powerful transmitter of the culture and the values of civilization.

Our role as parents is not to protect our children from the truth, but to protect them from something less than the truth.

Interesting thread, mum was from a family of 13 kids, she had 16.
Her sisters had from 7 to 13, so I know kids, maybe.
I watch my workmate with his two child family and know like his generation he is a better parent than those of my parents generation.
Better educated to be so and more time to be involved in their lives.
I think we should remember children are a gift to us, not our property forever .
My time as a parent was not unlike most of us I constantly tried to impress values that would help like just reading books 20 years before a failed politician came up with the idea.
Good parenting never came out of a book by an American professional, and it does not come via ownership of children.
No one set of answers exists for how to raise kids but it is good to see us debate the issues.

The unwritten pages! Well! "arnt there so many of them". What we do with our minds, will reflect on our children, SO! Why are you still learning what has already been thought about? You can have all the PHD,S in the world, but the raw thoughts, is what Iam interested in.
A time ago, all the people thought the world was flat, until one being found the facts and put its self right on the front line. And yes, they all laughed at him. GOOD! We need more ignorants in this world today.

Palimpsest,

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said here, but it has left me extremely puzzled.

You yourself said "The hardest part of parenting for me is keeping quiet and allow them to make their own decisions and consequently, often enough their own mistakes, without assuming for myself their right to decide their own lives." and yet on another thread you condemned a teacher for expressing these same sentiments.

I am neither sniping nor stalking here, but am genuinely curious as to why, when you admit how hard it is to resist the temptation to engrave on your own kids' tabula rasa, you should be so very harsh on someone else who shares this viewpoint?

I never really appreciated these lyrics for many years but...

You Have To Be Carefully Taught

"You've got to be taught
To hate and fear
You've got to be taught
From year to year
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!."

-Oscar Hammerstein, 1949 "South Pacific"

Dear Wobbles,

Thanks for reminding us ... Oscar Hammerstein, 1949, South Pacific.

The words are really an insight - into how little progress the world has made in the humanity stakes!

You have to be taught indeed - sad but true!

Belly, agreed that "Good parenting never came out of a book" - however science does have a lot to teach us about methods of child-raising that are known to be effective and/or damaging. Parental instincts are often flawed, being poorly adapted to 21st century realities.

I personally believe that there should be much much stronger compulsory education for parents - we already have ante-natal classes that help parents deal with the first 6-9 months: why not the next 18 years?

Of course atheists believe the only thing children should be taught is "There is no God". According to them the world's problems are all caused by faith in God, and it is child abuse to teach about God.

Obviously wobbles has had little experience with infant children if he/she believes this nonsence.
"You've got to be taught
To hate and fear
You've got to be taught
From year to year
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught".

I have had in my care over 19 infant children and they themselves can decide how they will respond to outsiders and strangers. They did not have to be taught to be frightened of Santa, darkness, loud noises or loud voices

Philo, as long as belief in God remains a significant facet of society, teaching children about God will remain important. Once my own child is old enough to understand, I fully intend to explain to him about all the various religions and Gods that people believe him. It will be entirely up to him whether he ends up believing that any of them truly exist.

Teaching about God only becomes child abuse when you attempt to convince them of a cruel and painful punishment that awaits them after death if they *don't* believe in God.

Be sure to mention to your child that belief in God is not about belief in a being, but belief in the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes. These are better demonstrated by example than by teaching. God is Spirit not a being. God is in all things moral and right - God is the spirit of perfection whom we aspire to follow. Children need to grow above their id instincts to become spiritual people. Even the atheist Bertram Russell encouraged this, he said teach a child the principles of the New Testament to children.

Philo,

“Even the atheist Bertram Russell encouraged this, he said teach a child the principles of the New Testament to children.”

It would be interesting for you to supply the citation for that remark. I do not mean some obscure religious site, I mean one based in reality.

David

I have and read several of Bertram Russell's books and from memory it is in his book "Why I am not a Christian" or in a book of essays by Bertram Russell. The statement is from his own writings. If I get time and can cite the passage I will give the title of his book and page. I have moved six months ago and disposed of about 1,000 books from my library, but I think his books are still in storeage.

I assume you mean Bertrand Russell, not Bertram Russell (two different people).

While a Google search for "Bertrand Russell" "New Testament" shows up a few interesting hits, I certainly can't find any evidence he specificly singled it out for praise as far as its ethical principles went. However this page dissects (from an Xtian POV) some of his many criticisms of Christ and the NT: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/bertrand_russell_and_christianity_part_2

The page itself is a woeful piece of argument ("Russell thinks he knows more than God"! - I'm sure he also thought he knew more than Santa Claus), but at least outlines Russell's views on the NT pretty well.

Philo,

I have read an enormous amount of the works or Bertrand Russel and I have no memory of him praising the New Testament. No one denies that some small parts of the NT contain good thoughts, but they are just echoes of the thoughts that have existed through many millennia. Bert may have mentioned that none too astounding observation.

I must point out that Bertrand Russell had an unqualified diastase for religion and the disaster it is, and has been for humanity. He has been one of the greatest advocates for the primacy of reason that has ever existed.

I have the book by Bertrand Russell – Why I am not a Christian - and if you can direct me roughly to where such a sentiment is expressed, I will have a re-read.

David

It's beginning to sound like a cracked record Philo (if you can remember such things) but I find it necessary to keep reminding you of the simple things:

>>Be sure to mention to your child that belief in God is not about belief in a being, but belief in the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes. These are better demonstrated by example than by teaching.<<

The point that non-religionists are making, Philo, over and over again, is that it is possible to teach children the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes without mentioning God at all.

It is also possible to provide examples, without finding it necessary to introduce the idea that there exists some judgmental supreme being who will punish you for misbehaving. Parents are ideally placed to fulfill all those roles - the example, the judgment, the punishment and the love that goes with it - without having to introduce an imaginary third party.

>>Even the atheist Bertram Russell encouraged this, he said teach a child the principles of the New Testament to children<<

According to his daughter Katherine Tait, Bertrand Russell gave her a lousy introduction to the Bible.

"When [Russell] wanted to attack religion, he sought out its most egregious errors [in the New Testament] and held them up to ridicule, while avoiding serious discussion of the basic message" (Katharine Tait "My Father Bertrand Russell" 1975)

>>The statement is from his own writings. If I get time and can cite the passage I will give the title of his book and page.<<

I look forward to comparing the two versions.

Incidentally, "Why I'm Not a Christian" was originally a speech that was later reproduced as an essay. If you'ld like to look through it again to refresh your memory, here it is.

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Have a great day.

I wrote a poem quite some time ago about raising children, thought I'd share it here ... hope that's ok.

Architect of a Generation

I was given inspiration
From an unexpected source
The setting of an old wares store
Proved the unlikely resource

A woman spoke to me of children
And advice given by her mum
Passed to her many years ago
At the birth of her new born son

She proceeded to explain
Though her mum was not profound
That those words offered early
For her life she has been bound …

"A child's not property
A child you cannot own
Though you'll spend years creating
It more a kind of loan"

"A child's like a building
Your job’s to build the base
They will provide the structure
That's offered to the human race"

So as the architect of a generation
Ensure the supports are sound
For within another thirty years
Their turn will come around.

Dear Corri,

Your poem was great - and very apt.

I believe that a newborn baby is an absolutely unique person.
Various studies have shown that newborn babies are decidedly different from one another in many ways: in passivity or aggressiveness; in sensitivity to light, sound, or touch; in th zeal with which they attack the nipple or bottle; in temperament; in the tonus of their muscles; in blood chemistry; and in hormonal balance.

The pattern of hunger and crying in my two male children was notably different when they were newly born infants. My older son, woke up hungry, he announced this fact by letting out an ear-shattering cry which could be heard for blocks and which lasted until my breast was in his mouth. But, when my younger son was a baby he exhibited a completely different pattern. He woke up and played happily by himself
for a few minutes. When he began to announce his hunger, he reminded me of one of those alarm clocks that purr softly at first and finally work up to an ear-chilling blast if you don't pay attention to the first gentle warning. He would begin by crying softly, and only cry in earnest if these first gentle cries were not heeded.

Here we have two children, both males, both products of the same general genetic inheritance, who are nevertheless vastly different, even from the day of birth, in their psychological characteristics and behaviour patterns. And I believe each child is just as different.
We have to respect each child's individuality .

Each child is a unique combination of genes which has never existed before on this planet and never will again. They are also growing up in a unique psychological environment because of their position in the family. This combination of unique genes plus unique environment means that, in the strictest sense of the word, each child in the family is as unique as his/her fingerprints. And, they deserve to be treated that way. We need to respect their uniqueness.

Corri,

How kind of you to share your poem - your intimate thoughts - with us. For me it was a reminder that these forums for self-expression are opportunities for showing the very best one is capable of as well as the careless and mean-spirited sides of one's character.

Pericles,
The point that I am making is that all these attributes are essentially in every way the image of God incarnate. They are spiritual attributes that relate to moral and ethical purity found in God incarnate. They are the standard, the ideal to be found in the perfect human, and as human we all fall short. As God he is to be admired and to whom we aspire.

Quote, "The point that non-religionists are making, Philo, over and over again, is that it is possible to teach children the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes without mentioning God at all."

I suppose on that definitive point you dismiss Buddaism as being classified a religion, because it does not mention God. Religion is the system of personal practices, Theism is belief in gods / God. Some religions are predicated upon belief in gods / God as external being/s for human behaviours direct or postponed reward or punishment. Perseverence in good character inspite of ridicule and persecution will ultimately shine as the right way - it is the eternal crown of life.

From your statement below on Bertrand Russell's education of his daughter we can well recognise a child's mind is not merely a blank page where children reproduce or believe taught lines, but are able themselves to balanced fact from fiction. Russell on facts of Christianity was obviously bitter and unbalanced. Since he believed he had lost a grandparent to some Churches lime pit never to be seen again. This unsubstantiated belief grossly coloured his emotions and emotive conclusions about Christianity.

Quote,
"According to his daughter Katherine Tait, Bertrand Russell gave her a lousy introduction to the Bible.

"When [Russell] wanted to attack religion, he sought out its most egregious errors [in the New Testament] and held them up to ridicule, while avoiding serious discussion of the basic message" (Katharine Tait "My Father Bertrand Russell" 1975)"

Note: I have uncovered several of Russell's books and are currently glancing through them. His own education certainly did not exclude reading the Bible, even though he focuses upon things he finds conflict with.

Philo,

I am becoming extremely confused now: trying to follow your last post was difficult.

As I had seen it issue was taken with the fact that you think that only belief in a god will provide a moral purpose?

Surely, having stated your firm belief in a god and then presenting the above to someone who does not believe in a god was somewhat tactless? Can't you see how the only possible interpretation of this is that you consider the person whom you were addressing not to be a moral person while considering you yourself to be one? A proposition such as this can have no other result than to seem judgemental to others on the thread too.

But to suddenly obfuscate with yet another premise which, with no foundation at all, further casts doubt upon your opponent does nothing to clear the air.

The Oxford Dictionary gives 4 definitions of religion; numbers one and two dealing with belief in a god and numbers three and four being:
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
So why should you suddenly cast Buddhism into the mix? What has this, Shinto, Confucianism, Paganism, Taoism or any other belief got to do with belief in a god? Why should your opponent suddenly be accused not only of immorality but now of intolerance and judgementalism?

As to Russell, I don't understand why you would state the obvious: of course he had read the Bible! How else would he be able to refute parts of it or criticise it to his daughter if he had not? How could he take issue with it and Christianity had he not done so? How do most Atheists take issue with gods if they have never heard of them?

I've kinda lost the plot at this stage of your argument

Romany,
From ancient times especially since the times of the ancient Roman Empire which has influenced Western culture, gods / God had physical dimensions. That is why they could make statues and figurines representing the god. Still in the mind of Westerners they cannot view God without physical imagery and imagine he is a supernatural being up in the sky somewhere. God for them is viewed as otherworld and remote but has powerful influence upon the Earth. Such a view misrepresents the nature of the spiritual. God is however the spirit (the power and pure creative motive) intrinsically involved and manifest in all creation.

God is present in the spiritual not the physical. God is present in attitudes, motives, wisdom, creativity etc. God is the template of perfection in the spiritual in whose image we were made. Every intelligent person has a desire to be, to meet or befriend the perfect person, that is why we all make judgments on human behaviour and attitudes. We have inbuilt an image of the highest of human ideals, perfect spirit, loving attitudes, forgiving of our shortcomings, wise, holy with pure motives etc. This ideal can only be classified as our God.

Giving children aspirations of the perfect hero/ heroine identifies for them the nature of God. Unfortunately today's children are more focused on body image rather than their spirit, they are indoctrinated to become physical giants and sports heroes, rather than gain identity with the pure Spirit of God. Their gods are physical rather than spiritual. Their heroes are immoral bullies and thugs who overcome lesser beings, their theology is; "Might is right". "The winners of the physical events are the gods". When the winners are those that demonstrate courage, perseverence in the face of giant opposition, love and sincere concern for their enemies.

Philo,

I assume you are aware of the term, empty rhetoric. The kind of talk in you last post may be soothing to the indoctrinated but it contained nothing convincing to a rational mind.

I’m still waiting for the reference to Bertrand Russell’s admiration of the New Testament.

David

David,
I what I have reviewed by glance so far of Russell's books I have he claims himself more representative of Jesus views than most of the Clergy he knew. So he sees himself as a better representative of Christ values than any any of the Clergy he knew. That was not the quote I was looking for though so did not record the book and page.

I brought Russell's books when I was in my early 20's evaluating the direction of my life and beliefs. Obviously I did not follow his negative attitudes and so committed myself to belief in God because I witnessed the love and care of Christians that I saw demonstrated whereas Atheists had no equal.

I now recognise you are also spiritually - devoid. For me love and sacrifice are eternal spiritual values that remain for every generation.

Philo,

You have found something else about Bertrand Russell, which you gladly tell us about, but oncer again, no reference. This kind of stuff does wear thin.

Russell would have seen himself as a better example of humanist values than many of those in the clergy.

“Spiritually devoid” is a meaningless phrase to an Atheist.

You realise, I presume, when you say such things, you are elevating yourself to a position that Atheists cannot as though you have some special part given by an alleged god and denied to us.

Let me ask you this. And please remember, unconvincing rhetoric is not an answer to an Atheist. It is only an answer to the convinced.

Why would a god deny us the knowledge of this alleged spooky benefit?

David

Wow, you really can tap-dance, Philo.

No sooner do you exhaust one line of reasoning as it founders in the swamp of its own non-sequiturs, than you spring another on us, equally devoid of pith and substance.

Let me take you gently by the hand and show you what I mean.

You made a straightforward, unqualified claim that:

>>Even the atheist Bertram Russell encouraged this, he said teach a child the principles of the New Testament to children<<

This was mildly surprising to those of us who have Russell on our bookshelves, as opposed to being in storage somewhere.

But you came right back with another bald claim.

>>The statement is from his own writings. If I get time and can cite the passage I will give the title of his book and page.<<

So I showed you a quote from his daughter, hinting that she might disagree with you. Far from teaching his own "...child the principles of the New Testament", he apparently used it as a tool of disparagement.

You tried hard to deploy a red herring at this point:

In response to my "it is possible to teach children the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes without mentioning God at all", you respond with:

>>I suppose on that definitive point you dismiss Buddaism as being classified a religion, because it does not mention God<<

Errrr... no, quite the opposite, I would hold Buddhists as perfect proof of my statement.

Perhaps you simply lost concentration for a moment.

So, where to now? I presume you have lost interest in justifying your original statement - can we expect a retraction any time soon?

Or are we simply to get more and more meaningless fluff, with the odd insult thrown in?

>>I now recognise you are also spiritually - devoid. For me love and sacrifice are eternal spiritual values that remain for every generation<<

At least you can claim to have maintained the same quality of thought all the way through.

David and Philo,

BERTRAN RUSSELL ON THE CLERGY

"It is not so much that the creed of the Church is the wrong one. What is amiss is the mere existence of a creed. As soon as income, position, and power are dependent upon acceptance of no matter what creed, intellectual honesty is imperilled. Men will tell themselves that a formal assent is justified by the good which it will enable them to do. They fail to realize that, in those whose mental life has any vigor, loss of complete intellectual integrity puts an end to the power of doing good, by producing gradually in all directions an inability to see truth simply. The strictness of party discipline has introduced the same evil in politics; there, because the evil is comparatively new, it is visible to many who think it unimportant as regards the Church. But the evil is greater as regards the Church, because religion is of more importance than politics, and because it is more necessary that the exponents of religion should be wholly free from taint." - Russell

Publication Information: Book Title: Bertrand Russell on God and Religion. Contributors: Al Seckel - editor, Bertrand Russell - author. Publisher: Prometheus Books. Place of Publication: Buffalo, NY. Publication Year: 1986. Page Number: 110. [Actually based essays from the 1920s]

Jesus; Man or God, to me, on occasion stood in opposition to Rites:e.g., Man and The Sabbath. Thus, Jesus was somewhat irreligious, where he deemed it appropriate to go against the grain.

Oliver,

You have a wide ranging knowledge on matters religious. It’s been yonks since I have enveloped myself in the murky beginnings of Christianity. I now find it not that important but it is good to know others do.

That’s an interesting quote from Bert. No doubt, you realise he is saying that following any creed dependent on income, position and power, imperils proper judgment. And in seeming contradiction he goes on to state that, for those days (1920’s) where religion had some importance to the majority, the exponents of religion must be free from the taint of ‘evil’. This is very clever stuff and I would hazard a guess, a little bit of self-protectionist doublespeak in line with the times.

As for the alleged Jesus being a man or a god, I would add, or even existing as claimed by the New Testament, I’ll stick to the alleged part, until there is a consensus of evidence, which is presently non-existent.

David

David,

Based on the evidence, as I now it, God does not exist. Nonetheless, re-modelling Lakatos a bit, I do believe in the notion of co-existence positive and negative heuristics; wherein, there is a toaster orbiting Plato. Else, you nurture absolutism and a sense of infallibility on the opposite pole to the Religionists. Just the same, for practical purposes, I assert non-existence of the toaster [or God]. Dawkins, for me, unexpectly, said something similar - he is not a 7/7.

In a similar period, H.G. Wells in his Outline on History; was alsosensitive to being too candid with his remarks for his day. Albeit; his deeper views do come through the overcast of the toned-down text.

On the topic of commitment to a conviction, Polanyi maintains said conviction is made on the basis of perceived confirmation at an ideterminant time in the future. Like Popper, I feel is a caution against absolutism.

Oliver,

One must be careful of intimidating any opposition by utilizing words, concepts and the names of folk, not in common usage. It may have been more useful to just state you do not accept a god exist because of the lack of evidence, as have I.

Atheists do not generally exhibit an absolutist stance so I see it unnecessary in you stating ambiguously, to whom you may be referring. i.e. Atheist or the religionists.

I think it well within your capacity to clearly portray your perception of reality without venturing into, what many may see. as elitist language.

I say the above as advice and not as an outright criticism. I am sure you will understand.

David

It appears so many of our threads end up in similar lines of discussion with very similar posters ... is there or isn't there a God.

If there is a God, gees I hope "it's" happy that we spend so much time debating the existence of one. If there is no God, hopefully if there is an alternate form of afterlife or soul existence we find it absurdly funny. The final option appears to be nothing whatsoever - in which case the whole question is moot.

I struggle to get past the belief of no greater entity than humanity - just like the Earth isn't the centre of the universe, I don't believe humanity is the pinacle of life - but that's just my opinion, and I look forward to laughing about it in the next life!

The question for me is how do finite beings understand infinite concepts?

Corri, many if not most atheists do not accept that "humanity" is the greatest entity in the universe. Try the "Human biases" discussion.

My Error [Above]: Pluto not Plato. The idea that there is no toaster orbiting Pluto is sometimes stated to argue the possibility of impossibility. As a highly degraded hypothesis [negative heuristic] I hold the toaster does exist. Of course, the main hypothesis is that it is extremely, incredibly unlikely that there is a toaster orbiting Pluto. Both hypotheses are concurrently held. Probability is highly variable, though.

One must be careful of intimidating any opposition by utilizing words, concepts and the names of folk, not in common usage.- David

-- Sorry, I was not trying to use "elitist" terms. I find that there is potential for the religionist/theist debate to turn into a slinging match. Herein, I try not adopt a priori a position and go for it. Instead I try to leverage history and the Philosophies to evaluate the status of religion. Science can be used too, but more than not it offers an "alternative" in opposition, which begs retaliation:e.g, The Big Bang versus Intelligent Design. With history, one, even a religionist, would find it hard to argue that Amenophis IV [XXVII Eygption Dynasty] was a not monothesist before Moses [actually post-Most, because Moses' crowd was henotheist] or that Seropis did not have a godhead similiar to that established to Christian godhead developed at/from Nicaea. These matters are essentially categorically known.

[1] Atheists do not generally exhibit an absolutist stance so I see it unnecessary in [2] you stating ambiguously, to whom you may be referring. i.e. Atheist or the religionists.

-- [1] If correct, that is good.
-- [2] Neither, Atheists nor the Religionists should posit their knowledge to be infallible, I suggest. Uniformity not ambiguity. Please excuse me, if I was unclear.

It may have been more useful to just state you do not accept a god exist because of the lack of evidence, as have I. - David

-- ... And that what evidence there is does not support the existence of God(s), wherein, the Atheistic position adopted held is to be true tentatively and tested and retested

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

I think you underestimate your own knowledge. That which to you is “categorically known”, is not to most people, even many ardent religionists. I am more than pleased you are willing to share the accumulation of your education.

By the way the toaster orbiting Pluto either derives from or precedes Bertrand Russell’s Sun orbiting teapot. In any case, both are brilliant examples differentiating between making improbable assertions and the assumption they are true. (Or something like that)

Speaking of Bert, here is a quote, which exemplifies his attitude to Christianity.

“That the world is in a bad shape is undeniable, but there is not the faintest reason in history to suppose that Christianity offers a way out.”

All the best,

David

David,
You are dealing with humans who do not have a good record of improving society or the world for that matter; no matter their philosophies. People who have strong conviction will always rise as leaders and others as followers.

Philo,

That is exactly why we should place immense value on the democratic system and why we should make sure it is not influenced by beliefs that are not in accord with rationality, compassion and empirical evidence. That is why we should keep dogma out of politics.

Any system of governance dependent on force, personality or 'sacred' creeds is the enemy of humanity.

Once dictatorial ideologically inspired tyranny takes over, democracy is hard to recover.

Be occupied for a couple of days with AFA Committee meetings etc.

David

David,

I agree that [religious]dogma should not enter politics. Democracy should represent the people, equally. Nonetheless, Pell et al would seem to have greater access to power than ordinary voters, yet constituent: Yet, we would have a Parker having greater access than you or I. Instutions of a feather flock together, towards suppression of democracy.

In England, we don't have true separation of Church and State, compounded a legacy of a Monarch being "Defender of the (sic. a) Faith. Canada still has an appointed [I think] Upper House. The US an Electoral College [I met Gore Vidal (hoping you know he is, not tying to be elitist) at a seminar about a year back; he said that the US Founding Fathers did not evisage a democracy. In Oz, we still don't have citizen refenda nor have we adopted the idea of some Ancient Greek City-States of treating some seats in the Senate like Jury Duty: Ordinary people were selected to serve for periods of time to break the formation of Party power. True democracy, I posit, would be less likely to bend to the Power of the Church, Business and Instututional interests, generally. But we are not a democracy, either. At leasted, not a fully developed one

David:

I'll try again :-)...

I agree that [religious]dogma should not enter politics. Democracy should represent the people, equally. Nonetheless, CARDINAL Pell et al would seem to have greater access to power than ordinary voters, yet IS NOT A constituent: Yet, we would have GENERATIONS OF [ MEDIA ]PACKERS having greater access than you or I. INSTITUTIONS of a feather flock together, towards suppression of democracy. - O.

David,
What is the main topic on your meeting agenda?
Is it How are we going to eradicate religious beliefs from democracy?
Of course only atheists are the true exponents of democratic principles - aren't they.

It is funny how England, Canada, USA and Australia established the most democratic Governments in the World and their founders were very dedicated Christians? Please Explain! Where are the current democratic systems established by atheists? Are North Korea and Cuba one? It would be an insight worth discovering.

Oliver,

I see no point in arguing as to what is a real democracy other than to say that the aspirations of people in Western counties is to aim for the ideal of democracy in so far as it representative of their hopes and dreams. I agree that Australia in not a real democracy but as Churchill quipped; “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

I agree also, that the Founding Fathers may not have envisaged ‘true democracy’ but they did aim for fair governance not hampered by religious belief. On the point of the beginnings of what we call democracy, as an example of the non-trustworthiness of history as we now see it, there are few better than the origins of the American Declaration of Independence. Although attributed to Jefferson as the author, there is compelling evidence the draft copy was actually penned by Thomas Paine. As this matter will most likely never be resolved to the satisfaction of all interested parties, unless genuine additional documentation becomes available, it would be a long and futile exercise in examining it in depth on this forum. You may harbour similar thought as I about this.

No one will go to heaven or hell for holding an opinion either way.

David

Philo,

“What is the main topic on your meeting agenda?”

The topics are wide and varied. They range from what has evolved since last meeting, documenting new membership, financial considerations, future plans, all tied up with a good dose of humour.

“Is it How are we going to eradicate religious beliefs from democracy?”

The AFA doesn’t think in the terms of “eradicate”. It does, however, look at ways of educating people to examine critically their beliefs. The Committee realises that the emotional hold of beliefs on adults is difficult to overcome, and for some, impossible. It therefore concentrates on placing rational ideas in the public arena where those who have not considered the implications of belief, may then do so. As an example, I do not expect to convert you to Atheism but many other people viewing these threads will give it some thought.

“Of course only atheists are the true exponents of democratic principles - aren't they.”

Not true in all cases on both sides. But the consensus of freely chosen Atheism is a far better way to decide matters as all the religious regimes in the world conclusively show.

The greatest leg-up for democracy, in which you and I benefit, was the American Declaration of Independence. It was formulated, as I have explained to Oliver, most likely by Thomas Paine, a Deist who wrote against Christianity in his very famous and as of yet, unrefuted book, The Age of Reason. He also was the first to coin the Phrase, The United States of America. But even if Jefferson was the author, he was definitely against Christianity and religion. (As were many others on the Declaration Committee.)

To openly class oneself as an Atheist in those times would be another declaration, one of destruction of social position at least. Many people were also hampered by the notion of creationism, which (Thankfully) Darwin and evidence continually mounting, put to rest.

North Korea is a tyrannical dictatorship and Cuba is not democracy. This kind of example demonstrates no understanding of freely chosen Atheism or is a mischievous use of language.

David

David,

Thanks for your insights and review.

“I agree also, that the Founding Fathers may not have envisaged ‘true democracy’ but they did aim for fair governance not hampered by religious belief. I agree also, that the Founding Fathers may not have envisaged ‘true democracy’ but they did aim for fair governance not hampered by religious belief…” - D.

-- The ideas of The American Founding are established on French liberal thought,as you know. That said: Fraternity is less evident in the American model than are Liberty and Equity. And like the British peer system, ideals applied more to landed, white males. Religionism, or at least spiritualism, is evident among the FF: Franklin and Washington seem to have been dedicated Masons. Herein, there are woodcut drawings of a Masonic ceremony at the laying of the foundation stone for the first White House (destroyed 1812).

The FF were Englishmen, whom didn’t want to pay taxes, while not having representation in the British Parliament. Continuing slavery as a source of labour, against British edicts in dispute too. NY and Cuba were major slave ports.

“Although attributed to Jefferson as the author, there is compelling evidence the draft copy was actually penned by Thomas Paine. As this matter will most likely never be resolved to the satisfaction of all interested parties, unless genuine additional documentation becomes available, ----it would be a long and futile exercise in examining it in depth on this forum ----.” – D.

---For decades into the twentieth century, it was held the Hindu Kush were always insignificant in power, when compared to the Ancient Egyptians. Yet, archaeologists did not rest there; ultimately, finding that for a period of at least one hundred years when The Kush were Egypt’s equal: Owing to proactive investigation and discovery of new evidence. Herein, propositions should be tested – not futile. Off Forum topic, perhaps. Knowing whether Shakespeare penned the first draft of Hamlet is relevant too, to Literaries. Did he just re-write / improve on earlier versions of the Play? Deserves investigation.

-- Hope your meeting went well.

More later on religious matters...

Oliver,

As you may be aware, the original draft of the Declaration condemned the slavery system but it was removed for the final document. It has been postulated that if it were not removed and acted upon, it may have averted the American Civil War. (Or it may have created an earlier one) It at least would have altered history as we understand it.

My point on relying on history is that it is not necessarily reliable. The Declaration came into existence in 1776, only a few hundred years ago – the events depicted in the NT, around year dot. (A vastly longer period)

To threaten people, especially children, with eternal damnation for not believing in ambiguous and unreliable history, is unreasonable and unacceptable to a rational mind-set.

David

Oliver,

“-- Hope your meeting went well.”

I’m doing four things at once at the moment and I missed your last comment.

AFA Management Committee Meetings generally go very well indeed. They are not only business oriented but a social event also. I find the atmosphere of being with like-minds very stimulating, even more so as we are all involved in making society a fairer and more equal place to live.

These meetings are happening all over the planet and they cannot help but improve the lot of humankind.

David

Davis,

"As you may be aware, the original draft of the Declaration condemned the slavery system but it was removed for the final document. It has been postulated that if it were not removed and acted upon, it may have averted the American Civil War. (Or it may have created an earlier one) It at least would have altered history as we understand it." -D

-- Maintaining the Union was more important to the North than abolishing slavery. Lincoln would contenance slavery before having the States break into industrial vs. agriculture economies. The French intelectuals of the eighteen century would have approved of succession a freedom to be excerised by the Southerners, I think.

"My point on relying on history is that it is not necessarily reliable. The Declaration came into existence in 1776, only a few hundred years ago – the events depicted in the NT, around year dot. (A vastly longer period)"

-- Agree history is not necessarily reliable, especially taught biased histories: e.g., the date above, 1776. One could argue that the USA was not recognised as an independent country until 1783.

On the NT, I agree. The life of a posited Jesus has been through oral ore, localised re-interpretations, Hellenision, melding with Roman cults, the development of godheads, factions [e.g. The Great Schism)
a zillion councils from Nicaea to Vatican II and beyond.

The US as the democratic centre state The West is work in progress. I guess England held that position from around to the beginning Elizabeth I's reign to the end of Victoria's. [Albeit, it could have been lost to the Spanish in 1588. In which case, David_BOAZ, might now be a devoted RC! Moreover, the US might only be a pretender. It has only been power since the late nineteen century, a super-power since WWI/WWII. The small period involved is too slight for the US Interregnum to consolidate power like the Eyptians, Greeks, Romans, Han, Britain across centuries and millenia. The US might/might not be a pretender - we don't know yet. Christianity is not a pretender: It is deep rooted.

Space!

Cont…

David,

To threaten people, especially children, with eternal damnation for not believing in ambiguous and unreliable history, is unreasonable and unacceptable to a rational mind-set. -D

Absolutely agree. But, one needs to realise the history of the Churches is not Sermon the Mount stuff: Different constructions. The Christian Churches are too often unlike the more humanist aspects of the alleged Jesus. History requires testing.

David, Philo and Cori,

SITTTING ON A POSITION

Karl Popper warns about the approach of confirmation of preconceived conditions in his, Conjectures and Refutations. Jung was seen by Popper, as someone whom took a position, then sought confirmations of the same and easily found –to him- these edifying examples. Likewise, if one is anti-religious, one needs to be careful not to fall into the trap of finding good examples of errors-in-religion, everywhere. Confirmation [Popper] is not the same as testing/falsifying.

Popper’s propositions on confirmation of preconceptions also apply to astrology and religion.

Moreover, we see that astrology did become astronomy and alchemy morphed into chemistry: Based on the separation of Theory [Episte] and Practice [Techne} from the Greeks?

In a similar context, one thing valuable in religion –not the gods—is the notion of the transcendental, wherein, for example, we move beyond classic mechanics to quantum physics.

Appreciating a 4-D hypercube requires the understanding of something that might not be real. Likewise, no one has every seen even a 3-D cube – think about it. Had we sat on Euclidean geometry, higher dimensionality in hyper-cubes and manifolds and religion, could not be envisaged. Being anti-religious runs the risk of throwing the transcendental out –like the baby- with the bath water.

A world-view, without the transcendental, I suspect, would limit the extent of Bertrand Russell’s [and Whitehead’s?] molecular structures. Newton is said have been religious: It is interesting he also developed transcendental calculi.

Being non-religious, permits one to test one’s non-beliefs: One’s tentative hypotheses might be confirmed – no god, for the present, or it “might” lead to a valid transcendental insight: e.g., pantheism bridging to design to a mathematical model of the Creation.

- Space again!

I note atheist David believes he has a mission to young unwriten minds to indoctrinate them in atheism. His mission is equally obsessive about beliefs as any responsibile Christian parent has to give foundations values and meaning to a child's life. He intends to change the World by indoctrinating the young in his negative theories ie. "there is no God", "humans have no ultimate purpose", "man is not morally acountable to a higher power".

This way he can give them preconceived mindset theories on how we got here without the mind of an independent designer who has power to create purposefull change. That the universe is purely an accident not a designed creation.

He wants minds as clean sheets to indoctrinate the unsuspecting and critical thinker. Funny that?

Oliver,

The comparison of times of ancient cultures ruling as world powers, is now tempered with the knowledge of the changes brought about by the huge advancements of the industrial/technological revolution. Things happen a lot faster nowadays with the stagnation of modern cultures not so assured. Rapid demise is more of a possibility, but an unchanging ethos between generations as in the past, is no longer an available option. A return to the dark ages would facilitate an unchanging world of absolute oppression again, but let’s hope that scenario never eventuates.

The old cry that this or that religion has been around for yonks and will be forevermore, is no more valid than stating that the USA will be a world power forever. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that China will replace it in the near future with the other contender being India. (But further down the track)

Superpowers need super economies to remain and expand. There are already signs of an economically/ethically teetering USA.

If the planet can keep increasing education levels, social support systems, have healthy economies and can refrain from blowing itself up or wrecking the environment in a devastating irreparable way, religion will most definitely become a minority affair.

People promoting that religion (And they mean, their religion) is eternal, are living in the past, exactly where religion should reside. Conversely, those who do remain religious should not be hassled by governments or society in general if they keep it to themselves. The sticking point with this is, religion finds it impossible to not proselytise. Their own mental integrity depends on convincing everyone they are right. The cost of this is seen nightly on the news.

Just to clear something up. I am anti – the bad parts of religion. i.e. Indoctrination, political interference etc. I thought I made that clear. Oliver, your words suggest you agree with me on this.

David

Philo,

“Thou shalt not bear false witness”, is the 9th commandment, not a suggestion. I do not wish to indoctrinate anyone. Please reread my posts to prevent further misrepresenting me.

David

David,

"Conversely, those who do remain religious should not be hassled by governments or society in general if they keep it to themselves."

The power of the Church in the US in 2020 will probably greater than it was in 1820, despite the immense growth in knowledge generally. Disproving respective null hypotheses Theist or Antheist resists this course of action.

I find Philo willing to admit some the accretions of the early Thesist spin doctors and mistakes in translations to his credit. Regarding th latter, look at Michaelango's Moses... In the Middle Ages, linguists translated rays as horns. Gone look at a photograph of the sculpture.

Oliver,

"The power of the Church in the US in 2020 will probably greater than it was in 1820, despite the immense growth in knowledge generally."

There is no way of knowing that. My guess is that the church will take a dive with the upcoming generation entering the political sphere. Now we have both had a guess.

And no one should deny that the USA is out of step with other Western countries when it comes to religiosity.

Unlike Philo, I have nothing to concede as I am promoting nothing, just commenting on the many faults of religion.

Do you think you have altered Philo's stance any more than have I?

David

Please be better informed on current world trends. Do you suppose China or India are non-religious or have no religious influences in their current trends? China, though underground, is like South Korea is gradually turning to Christianity as it brings economic prosperity. More people are becoming Christian in China today than in any previous history despite it being officially banned. And persons found proselyting face imprisonment.

The official agenda of China is to eradicate people of religious practise and they do it by imprisonment and removal of body organs. I suppose you suport such a inhumane Government? As far as India is concerned how do you intend to remove Hinduism and Muslim influences from the society? Both as World powers are currently a threat to our now enjoyed democratic freedoms and justice. They would be more ruthless than the USA if they become the dominant power.

Your statement,"It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that China will replace it [USA] in the near future with the other
contender being India. (But further down the track).

Philo,

Any country that doesn’t respect the ideal of democracy does not get the vote of Atheists. This is the reason as to why Atheists are trying to protect the one we have. Many countries where the education levels are poor or non existent have resurgent and ongoing religious interest. The Philippines and South America are good examples.

Could you validate your statement that Christianity is bringing economic prosperity to China, as it surely hasn't in the Philippines and South America.

I suppose your realise that in China they have an official Catholic religion and Buddhism condoned by the Government. The Pope and the Dalai Lama are left out of the equation.

I stated that China will be the next superpower. I did not say it was a good or bad thing.

Point out as to where I need to be better informed?

I’m wondering, Philo, what is your point?

David