h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't mean to offend anybody with religious beliefs but I *do* see religion as being founded in mythology and therefore, while I have no reason not to respect the people, I have no respect for their beliefs. To pretend otherwise would be disingenuous.

I know this is a trite analogy but, if parents brought their children up with faschistic(sp?) beliefs, should they be allowed to get away with it because they believe their beliefs are right?

People have been discussing these issues for centuries and we haven't found an answer yet.

And I see atheism as an immature and misguided response to an incomplete view of reality as it is for humans, but I don't (usually) say so because it can achieve NOTHING except to annoy those who hold those views.



Then you have no reason to insult their beliefs, do you?



My point exactly. That's why I asked what you intended to do about it. In practice, we must all accept that parents will do their best for their children, even though it won't always be what *we* think is for the best. If you or I can't live with others of different beliefs, then we're not very good examples of social animals, are we? Maybe that even reflects back on the beliefs *we* hold...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ooops, forgot to explain that 'reluctantly'. I dislike using the term atheist because it describes my position relative to theism when in fact I'd rather remove myself from any of that god-bothering stuff.

The reason I object to the preachy tone in the book I'm reading is because I'd rather see the science explained (as I recall them doing in the first two books) without needing to include lots of barbs at the religious. Fine, point out the flaws in the creationist's argument, that is perfectly ok. What I don't like is the tone - I don't like being preached to even if I agree with the message...

Pattern-chaser:

'And I see atheism as an immature and misguided response to an incomplete view of reality as it is for humans'

I don't see inventing things to plug the gaps in our knowledge as particularly mature. Having said that I don't think religion is there to 'plug the gaps' anymore - I think it's just there for its own sake.

'Then you have no reason to insult their beliefs, do you?'

I'm not insulting anyone's beliefs, just voicing my perception of them.

You're right. As long as we all believe our differing opinions are right nobody can decide what's best for the children. Which could lead to a different conversation but it'd get messy and never be resolved!

I don't want to turn this into a long and tedious dialogue, so I'll try to keep it short:

Roymondo:

My opinions, and yours, on religion may be of interest to anyone reading this thread.

We both know in advance that our opinions on religion are different: we disagree. So my opinion *of* your opinion, and yours of mine, offer: no semantic or constructive content, nothing we don't already know, and offence to the recipient.

This being so, wouldn't you agree that it is best to keep your perceptions (opinions) of someone else's opinions to yourself?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I agree with your reservations about "Science of the Discworld III; Darwin's Watch" Kelli. I ended up reading the maths and the fiction and just scanning Jack Cohen's contributions.
have just finished reading "Heaven" - the latest work of fiction by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen and it also suffered greatly from the anti-theist preaching.


Surely forcing an anti-theist world view on children is just as bad as forcing religion on them?

And interfering in what people choose to teach their children is fascism, pure and simple. Where would it end? You would start out preventing them teaching their religion. Then their culture (which is often very deeply intertwined with the religion). Is the next step their politics and then their personal choices?

And as for something being more worthy of consideration just because a lot of people believe it: 30 years ago those of us who indulged in such practices as recycling, organic food production (and some _really_ ridiculous ideas such as keeping the raw meat below the cooked meat!) were mocked as cranks. Are these practices any more worthy of consideration now that they have become mainstream? Is the religion of rampant consumerism worth our consideration because so many people seem to follow it? How about spending every evening in the pub and all bank holidays trailing round shopping centres?
Then why should theisms be any different?

The putative aliens would surely record them as interesting cultural phenomena but why would they bother considering their validity just because a fairly large proportion of an "alien" race (humans) derive some comfort from them?

Tefkat: I quite agree.



These aliens may well decide not to bother considering the *validity* of human religions, but I suggest they would consider them *significant*, because so many humnas believed in them.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

People are allowed to get away with bringing up their children in the belief that making money and acquiring possessions and status are very important.

People are allowed to get away with bringing up their children in the belief that nakedness is shameful and/or aberrant.

People are allowed to get away with bringing up their children in the belief that heterosexuality is desirable.

People are also allowed to get away with bringing up their children in the belief that homosexuality is also fine.

People are allowed to get away with bringing up their children in the belief that the brutal abortion of a 24 week old foetus is acceptable.

Some people believe that everyone should at least try to conform to *their* cultural norms.

some even believe that children should be trained to act "normal" so they don't make the -people feel uncomfortable.

Can you find it in you to respect any of those beliefs?

If you happen to hold any of them do you feel that anyone holding conflicting beliefs should respect your views?

Do you respect my right to believe that somewhere in the vicinity of Beta Eridani there may, possibly, be a moonlet made of something very similar to green cheese?

If not, why not? Does my world view make yours any more or less valid?



There's a very nasty label for people who don't respect other people's beliefs. Social Workers!

P-C, what do you mean by "significant" in that case?

Of interest to a race that might wish to communicate meaningfully with humans.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The question, I feel is 'Is what you choose to teach your own children your responsiblity or the States'.

Well frankly in this society it's considered to be the responsiblty of society. A child cannot withdraw their child from a Mathematics lesson at school, even if a child is Home Educated, Educational inspectors do ensure a standard of education and they would be concerned if a child was not being taught any Mathematics at all.

You may say that this is interfering with your right to teach your own Children that 2 + 2 = 5, but society thinks that not teaching your children that 2 + 2 = 4 is an abuse of their rights to learn basic skills.

What if parents who used sign langauge because they were deaf decided that they wanted to educate their (hearing) child only in sign language and never teach him or her to use spoken language?

Surely that shouldn't be allowed.

I struggle to see much difference between 'those atheists are godless unbelievers who will burn in hell for all eternity because they don't accept our way of looking at the world' and 'those theists are credulous morons who are idiotically deluding themselve because they don't accept our way of looking at the world'.

There are other ways to disagree IMO.

The actor Richard Griffiths was on desert island discs last week - he was brought up by two profoundly deaf parents who could not teach him how to speak. He said he wasn't quite sure how he had learned as no effort was particularly put in to teaching him.

Oh I see - they would be interested in the religions as a way of gaining insight into the way some humans think?

Z - actually if you teach your children at home you don't have to follow the national Curriculum, all they require proof of is that you are teaching them something.

Why shouldn't deaf people be allowed to teach their children only sign language? Don't some hearing English people only teach their children English? Some people only speak Gujerati or Polish at home and never learn English. Should they be forced to teach their children a language they themselves can't speak?

Should parents be forced to "socialise" their children if it's obviously torture for the child and uncomfortable for the parent?

What about elective mutism? Should people who feel uncomfortable talking be forced to because society feels that is the norm?

BTW you can have your children removed from Religious Education and religious assemblies in school. You can also ask them to include your religion in the curriculum. I used to know Baha'i's and Wiccans who did so. You tend to find the school don't have the requisite knowledge, but that's where parents come in.

Most (neurotypical) children have an innate bias towards language. They will pick up any language they happen to hear. Some young children even teach themselves to read.

They also seem to have an innate bias towards creating mythology.

I was home educated as a child, and I do remember the visits where my parents were asked if they were teaching us Maths and Science subjects, both my parents were artists by training and the inspectors were keen that to see that we were recieving education in all subjects.

I think that Home Education, if the parents is educated themselves and capable of learning most subjects to GCSE level (which I would assume that most degree level people are)

I think that society does have duty to protect children from the barmy ideas of some parents. I also think that it has a duty to ensure that the majorty of children reach working age with the best possible mean to earn their own living.

I was refering to deaf children, because I was assuming that if they were exposed to any speech at all up until a certain age they would not develope speech at all. I'm fine with deaf parents using sign language at home, and I'm fine with Welsh parents only speaking Welsh at home. I was trying to explain a hypothetical situation where a child was kept from all outside influences so they *only* learn sign language and didn't develope spoken language.

What future has a child got if elective mutism continues to adulthood? Surely they should be, er, heavily encouraged to engage in spoken conversation?

As for should parents be forced to socialise their child? Well no, they shouldn't be forced to, I don't have a problem at all with home education. But I would have a problem if they weren't encouraged to socialise, if not at school then in some sort of evening activity. If a child finds social situations tourture then they aren't going to get any better by avoiding them completely. Maybe they need different exposure to social situations than the ones provided at school, but they need *some* social skills.

Sorry for ignoring a large chunk of backlog but this thread is in the 'Freedom From Faith Foundation'. If the atheists 'round here want to engage in a discussion about religion with a theist that's fine but why can't atheists express their views without having to justify them? The programme which inspired this thread was a rare beacon of atheism in a world full of 'Songs Of Praise'. Surely we should be allowed to talk amongst ourselves.

I'm sure atheists pop up in 'God threads' and stir things. That's wrong, they shouldn't do it.

Theist/atheist religious debate is the unstoppable force hitting the immoveable object. Can't we have our own little corners where we can slag eachother off with no harm intended?

, no, not even if this *was* an exclusively atheist club.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

A disturbing trend I have noticed...

...Is to declare that atheism is a "belief" because it is impossible to prove that there isn't a god.

This is a fallacy. It sounds logical, but the truth is the god argument is meaningless. In the absence of proof for or against the existence of god, the rules of logic dictate we accept that god does not exist. It is easy to see why; you cannot populate the universe with things from your imagination, then state that they must exist because no-one can find evidence they don't. The lack of evidence is because, with no existence, there is no evidence to find.

It's fine if you don't mind opting out of logic, but...

illogical = irrational.

irrational = random.

and random = meaningless.

We set limits on how far society/the state cn interfere with the way parents bring up their children.

We also set limits on how far such upbringing can depart from certain norms.

The question is not ^whether* there should be such limits. It's about *what* those limits should be.

Noggin

Au contraire, in the absence of proof, we should maintain an agnostic position until further evidence becomes available. If a question is unanswerable, in theory or in practice, recognise it and move on. Unless you want to spend your life counting angels on pinheads, of course!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"