On Labels

loquax · Mar 29, 2007

Please bear in mind this article discusses only the subject of non-belief, and my reasoning. My active beliefs, my philosophies, and my world view, are a different subject altogether.

On Labels

I’m not an Atheist. In the same way that Zero is not a number (it’s the lack of a number), I shouldn’t be labelled. What I hold is not a belief, but the lack of one. I could sit here and proclaim the non-existence of an infinite number of things – of elves, of unicorns, of the lack of a ring on my finger, the lack of a hat on my head, and the lack of these things in every instance of eternity. “There is no God” is but one of these infinitesimally small proclamations. Religion is nothing to me, and I don’t want to involve myself with it.

Unfortunately, there is one thing I won’t stand for. And that’s the indoctrination of children. Quite simple and specific, but enough to make me angry.

Of course, there’s no way for me to prove the non-existence of a God. Even the best philosophers have a hard time proving things. Descartes said, “I think therefore I am,” but even that, if successful, only proves the self – not existence as a whole. So I guess I’m agnostic. But in that same vein are the infinite number of other things I can’t prove. And seeing as these are all completely unimportant and non-defining of my beliefs, neither is the non-existence of a God. My life and conclusions are based on evidence and logic. And based on this, I've come to the ultimate conclusion that there really is no God. But to call it a conclusion is an overstatement. In the same way I've concluded there is no God, I've concluded television sets are not made of cheese.

If a theist so chooses to convert an atheist, the first thing they will do is attempt to force the atheist to admit to agnosticism over atheism. Very well. But in the next breath often comes the claim of a God very different to that of an abstract being who so happened to create the universe. What they claim is a being with which one can form a personal relationship. These two entities are very different. One cannot be objectively linked to the other.

To deny a cosmic intelligence – an architect of existence – is very difficult. To deny a loving God is very easy. Fortunately for me, the denial of the former is the automatic denial of the latter, for logic doesn’t allow me to believe in a creator that would not want to form a relationship with its creations. Indeed, any creationist is normally religious also – for the simple reason that creation is a prerequisite of theistic religion. Even though creationism can exist on its own, it rarely does. This is an interesting thing to note. Creationists without a religious disposition simply do not exist; or if they do, in negligible number. This alone is a huge black mark against the validity behind any rational creationist theory.

So: to deny a loving God. There are myriad ways of doing this, but the simplest by far is the existence of evil. Can I prove evil exists? No. But by God I know it’s there.

Some will blame suffering on the beauty of free will. Fine. This in itself has issues, but I won’t deal with them, because the denial comes much easier that that. I ask you one question – what has caused the most suffering in the past five years?

The simple answer is God. Knives and guns do their job – of course, man is a large contributor to the pain in this world. But in the past five years we’ve had numerous hurricanes, tsunamis, famines and diseases. Cancer, AIDS, and genetic illness are not the work of man. This automatically means they are the work of God – no exceptions. And I don’t care what your excuses may be. A test of our faith seems to be the most popular, but even this doesn’t change my view that such a test is immoral. To me, there is no such thing as a loving God. And as said before, this automatically denies the existence of a creator.

But why should I care? Well, at the bottom of the ladder there are aesthetic reasons. When someone sees a car crash, they phone for an ambulance. Within minutes the paramedics are on the scene to administer first aid. The passenger is proclaimed dead, but they won’t give up hope for the driver. They whisk them to hospital. Drivers on the road swerve out of the way to let the ambulance past. When at the hospital, doctors who work twelve our shifts do their best to save the driver. Nurses take care of the patient; lead them through mental stresses as well as physical. Against all odds, the driver survives. They walk out of the hospital alive, and not even in any kind of debt if in a country with free health care. They arrive home with a few stitches, one hell of a headache, and a loving father who proclaims,

“Thank the Lord.”

Are these people blind to the love of Man? Blind to the miracle of comradery and altruism? At what point did God, objectively, have anything to do with this? When did He intervene? Why in His infinite knowledge of eternity did He let the passenger die? Why all this pain and suffering – sleepless nights by the life-support machine? Do you call this a loving God?

If God exists, He’s trying very hard to make it look like He doesn’t.

But then, I can’t blame God for saving someone. Let’s just say that he did save that driver. Fine. But please don’t tell me in the next sentence that if that driver doesn’t worship Him they’ll burn in Hell for all of eternity when they do finally bite the dust.

This is where my anger at the indoctrination of children comes into the equation. Convincing existence of a Hell is nothing less than psychological child abuse. The very phrase “God fearing” sums this up quite nicely. Indoctrinating children is accustoming them to a life of fear. And the sad part is, they don’t even recognise it as abuse. They accept it. It’s simply modified Stockholm Syndrome.

But I’m not a hypocrite. Neither should children be convinced of the non-existence of a God. They should not be instructed at all. They should be informed of every available path of belief.

Information and instruction. Two different things. Inform a child and let them think for themselves when they grow up. There’s a reason children are devastated when you tell them Santa Clause doesn’t exist – it’s because they believe whatever you tell them. But the worst Santa Clause can do is give you a lump of coal instead of presents. God can do some pretty twisted stuff. I’d be happier with the Santa Delusion than the God Delusion. Unfortunately people see it fit to destroy the happy delusions and enforce the twisted ones.

But let’s say all of this is true. Let’s say Theists manage to excuse every single one of these points quite convincingly. Well then we come to the ultimate, inexcusable observation: that humans are puppets. A cosmic puppet show. What is our purpose? To worship. To bow down and offer ourselves. To play a game, and to win or lose. Why?

Why?

That question cannot be answered by even the most knowledgeable Theist.

But even so, I’ll support to the death any person’s right to believe the way they do. And if they come up with some respectable thoughts, by God I’ll respect them. I’ll respect the love in their hearts and the way they go about their daily lives.

Just don’t inject your poison into the ears of innocent children. Theists, Atheists, the lot of you.

Nothing much makes me angry in this world. I don’t follow ethics set out by others – I believe morality has a logical element to it. I believe that murder, in some circumstances, is necessary, or satisfactory. In the same way, I see my anger at my fellow man as a justified emotion. I am angry. And religion makes me that way. Indoctrination of any belief, whether I agree with it or not, makes me angrier still. It just so happens that indoctrination is an integral part of religion, and plays very little part in atheism.

But am I an Atheist? No. I don’t want to be labelled. But so long as Theists are damaging my fellow men - my fellow children - I will take a deep breath and accept a Label. Atheists are simply people who’ve lived separate lives, had no contact, no doctrine, no scripture… yet have arrived at exactly the same conclusions. I am one of these many people.

But I'm not an Atheist.

If I have to accept a label, I look at what I am and not at what I’m not. And what I am is against religion. There are plenty of things I don’t believe in - plenty of things that I regard with utter nonchalance. But there are very few things that evoke in me a passionate indignation.

If I have to accept a label, I’m an Anti-Theist.

Cathy C · Apr 3, 2007

This is an interesting viewpoint. I agree with a great deal of it, but have to stop at the concept of "indoctrination" of children. This implies that teaching a religion---WHATEVER religion---is the equivalent to throwing a child into a black hole where no light can enter or escape. On the contrary, teaching one belief system often leads to a craving for knowledge in a young mind. A wise parent allows a child to explore the edges of religion and also allows them the choice of walking away once adulthood, or some arbitrary number, is attained.

To me, to raise a child in a vacuum, without any sort of larger view of the universe is far worse than teaching one system over another. While it would be far better to teach ALL religious systems and allow a child to choose, that would be like asking a parent to teach ALL languages in the world and allow the child to choose. It's not always the best way to survive in the specific locale of the child's birth.

I like to believe that an inquisitive mind will search beyond initial teachings to make their own decisions and choices. Oftentimes, adolescents and young adults switch religions like changing clothing, until they find the right "something" that resonates inside. Now, what resonates in a young Baptist-trained might be Judiasm or Muslim, or heck--even a Jim Jones-style cult. :Shrug:

The goal is to achieve a level of comfort within one's self . . . some modicum of belief (or lack thereof) that you can wrap yourself around to keep warm. To me, it's the thirst for knowledge that keeps me going.

But indoctrination can be overcome if it's the right individual answer. I know, because I've done it.

Interesting discussion, BTW.

loquax · Apr 4, 2007

Thanks for the thoughts, Cathy.

I strongly believe in a religious culture. Because I live in England, I'm a cultural Christian. I celebrate easter, christmas, and lent. If I get married it will probably be in a church. I suspect the same will be very different if I had grown up elsewhere in the world.

When I say a child should be informed of "all religions," I mean the religions that would be culturally important to them. For instance, a child growing up in New York might do well to learn about Judaism, and a child growing up in London to learn of Islam. Both would of course learn about Christianity, too.

What I'm against is the concept of an adult telling their child one way is right and everything else is wrong. And this does happen. A lot. False information, in my mind, is worse than no information. Opinions can be formed on their own, and should never be taught as fact.

In cases where parents merely suggest a religion to their children, I'm not so aggravated. But the fact remains that ones religion is almost entirely based on the beliefs of their parents. And this fact, to me, is horrifying. To all those who believe differently to their parents, I applaud. To those who zealously adopted their family religion, I ask what would have become of them had they been born in Pakistan.

aruna · Apr 7, 2007

Hi loquaz, some interesting points here; I'd like to reply to a few, aks a few questions.

loquax said:
Unfortunately, there is one thing I won’t stand for. And that’s the indoctrination of children. Quite simple and specific, but enough to make me angry.

I am one such indoctrinated child: indoctrinated with atheism! Believe me, it wasn't fun!

Descartes said, “I think therefore I am,” but even that, if successful, only proves the self – not existence as a whole.

No, it doesn't prove the self. Far better is the Eastern view, which is the other way around: "I am, therefore I think" - being comes before thinking.

But in the next breath often comes the claim of a God very different to that of an abstract being who so happened to create the universe. What they claim is a being with which one can form a personal relationship. These two entities are very different. One cannot be objectively linked to the other.

How do you know? If a person claims to have formed a loving relationship with a personal God, why should such an entitynot be linked to the abstact being you first mention? Why cannot they be one and the same, just seen from different aspects? Why can't God be both: impersonal AND personal, depending on the frame of mind or culture or personality or needs of the believer?

To deny a loving God is very easy.

Yes; unless a person has actually experienced a loving God such a thing does indeed seem impossible and totally irrational. And yet, millions of people of all faiths claim to have experienced the love of God. Are they all dreaming? Making it up? Hallucinating?

So: to deny a loving God. There are myriad ways of doing this, but the simplest by far is the existence of evil. Can I prove evil exists? No. But by God I know it’s there.

But what if evil only exists outside the love of God? What if evil is in fact the absense of God? What if the cure to evil is finding God?

When someone sees a car crash, they phone for an ambulance. Within minutes the paramedics are on the scene to administer first aid. The passenger is proclaimed dead, but they won’t give up hope for the driver. They whisk them to hospital. Drivers on the road swerve out of the way to let the ambulance past. When at the hospital, doctors who work twelve our shifts do their best to save the driver. Nurses take care of the patient; lead them through mental stresses as well as physical. Against all odds, the driver survives. They walk out of the hospital alive, and not even in any kind of debt if in a country with free health care. They arrive home with a few stitches, one hell of a headache, and a loving father who proclaims,

“Thank the Lord.”

I suggest you see this all from a different perspective. Many religions see God as only working through us - through humans. We are his instruments, his only instruments. Good on earth takes place through us. When we love God, we cannot but do good; we cannot but help each other, even at the sacrifice of our own comfort. If we love God,we also love our neighbour.

If humans are God's instruments, but through exercize of our free will we refuse to be such instruments, then who is to blame? And what if all that help you outlined in your post above is actually an example of God in action - working through humans?

Are these people blind to the love of Man? Blind to the miracle of comradery and altruism? At what point did God, objectively, have anything to do with this?

What if all of this actually IS the work of God? What if all goodness, all compassion, all love for each other is placed in our hearts by that being, and evil is merely the absense of divine love, the total denial of it, so much so that such a person turns into the opposite? And again I ask: what if loving God is the cure for evil?

If God exists, He’s trying very hard to make it look like He doesn’t.

Maybe he just wants us to look harder - maybe he enjoys games of hide and seek!

But then, I can’t blame God for saving someone. Let’s just say that he did save that driver. Fine. But please don’t tell me in the next sentence that if that driver doesn’t worship Him they’ll burn in Hell for all of eternity when they do finally bite the dust.

I don't think so. I don't think God needs to be worshipped, or even believed in.

This is where my anger at the indoctrination of children comes into the equation. Convincing existence of a Hell is nothing less than psychological child abuse.

I agree with you.

God can do some pretty twisted stuff.

I don't think so. It's humans that do the twisted stuff.

To bow down and offer ourselves.

Yes!

Why?

Because that is the best way to become a perfect vessel of love, and to enjoy the most ineffable bliss and freedom.

That question cannot be answered by even the most knowledgeable Theist.

I'm not very knowledgeable or even a Theist, but I just answered it!

If I have to accept a label, I look at what I am and not at what I’m not. And what I am is against religion.

But aren't you doing just what you said you wouldn't do - defining yourself by what you aren't?

I do believe that the most important question a person can ask is Who Am I? Fund out who you really are, and then start asking questions about God and the Universe.

Cathy C said:
To me, to raise a child in a vacuum, without any sort of larger view of the universe is far worse than teaching one system over another.

You are quite right, Cathy. As a child raised atheist, all I can say is that it left a deep black hole in my being.

loquax · Apr 7, 2007

Hi Aruna, thanks for your thoughts.

As I think we've discussed before, your personal view on religion is one I haven't often come across elsewhere. Maybe it was your being raised as an atheist that's made your form your own unique type of spirituality. What I will say is that the vast majority of religious people don't think the way you do. I actually admire the way you view God - at least there has been some considerable thought gone into it, and you've gone against the grain that was taught to you.

A reply to your questions and comments:

A lot of what you say has to do with viewing God subjectively: that if one believes in a higher power, it becomes easy to understand it. When I argue against the existence of a God, I have no room for subjection. I'm not interested in an argument whereby understanding follows belief, whether it be regarding God or anything else. This goes for claiming Love is God and vice versa (my love isn't God thankyouverymuch).

My point about the two separate Gods - one cosmic and one personal - is that Theists believe in the fusion that you mention, yet creationists argue their points only with the cosmic God. For example "you believe in God because you can't explain existence." Fine, but that doesn't mean I believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for all our sins. My point is that the majority of creationists have their opinions tainted by their belief in a loving God, which comes through in their arguments for a cosmic one. Non-religious creationists are few and far between.

When I say God does twisted stuff, I mean the amount of people he kills and tortures in the old testament. At one point he kills everybody on earth, yet Christians have managed to turn that into a nice story of love called "Noah's Ark"

Because that is the best way to become a perfect vessel of love, and to enjoy the most ineffable bliss and freedom

This, for me, doesn't explain the need to torture people in Hell for all eternity. Are you claiming Hell is simply a device to scare us into the state of bliss you claim? I don't see the need for a Hell, other than the obvious superficial device of scaring people into joining your religion, which is a concept that has its roots in money and power, not love.

And lastly, my final point about labels. I won't be labelled an official Atheist, because Atheism is a lack of a belief, not an active part of my life. I'm not engaging with anything here - I'm rejecting, just as I reject an infinite number of other things. However, my embracing of the dislike of religion is an active belief, and so should be my defining label.

Hope this clears some issues up, and thanks for taking the time to read what I have to say!

P.S. this is all very negative. If anyone would like to hear my positive views about life, I'd be more than happy to express them. I'd also like other atheists or non-theistic spirituals to express their opinions in a similar fashion to the way I have. I find it helps to hone my own way of thinking, and I'm tired of hearing Dawkins babble on!

aruna · Apr 7, 2007

loquax said:
Hi Aruna, thanks for your thoughts.

As I think we've discussed before, your personal view on religion is one I haven't often come across elsewhere. Maybe it was your being raised as an atheist

Click to expand...

yes, and I am really thankful for this. It made me go out and search actively.

Because that is the best way to become a perfect vessel of love, and to enjoy the most ineffable bliss and freedom

This, for me, doesn't explain the need to torture people in Hell for all eternity. Are you claiming Hell is simply a device to scare us into the state of bliss you claim? I don't see the need for a Hell, other than the obvious superficial device of scaring people into joining your religion, which is a concept that has its roots in money and power, not love.

Click to expand...

Well, no. I don't believe in a Hell at all; other than the hell we create for ourselves in our own minds. Given the carrot or the stick, I much prefer the carrot!! Christians really make the mistake of using fear to sacre people into religion. If they would only talk about happiness, they might find more resonance. Living spirituality is indeed the greatest happiness possible; but one of my main objections to Christianity is the attitiude that if you are not good, God wil not love you and send you to hell. My way is more the opposite: Go to God (whatever you feel him to be, by wnatever name) just the way you are: dirty, broken, "sinful", miserable and see what happens.

My concept of spirituality is far nearer to applied psychology than it is to any religion. Ie prayer works, because the mind is lifted out of its own misery and crooked ways, and into a purer, vaster, more beautiful state of being - we are nearer to how we really are, to our true being, than even before; and that, for me, is the aim of my life here on earth.

In times of happiness, God is for me impersonal, just vast Being. When I am miserable, when things go wrong, it helps to see him as personal, and to pray as if "he" were another personal. But that is only an aide to help me clear my mind; a figurative exercize in turning back to myself. That's also why Confession works for Catholics. I don't really believe in a God out there, looking down; but anything that helps is good, and help it does. In that sense, I agree with children being raised within a reliegion, as it teaches them the art of how to "Lift up your hearts, we lift them to the Lord." It really is a very valuable art; helps us to be masters of our own happiness.

In this vein, I wish you a very happy and blessed Easter! (just teasing!)

Melisande · Apr 18, 2007

loquax said:
I'd also like other atheists or non-theistic spirituals to express their opinions in a similar fashion to the way I have. I find it helps to hone my own way of thinking, and I'm tired of hearing Dawkins babble on!

I have presented myself in this forum as an atheist, I think rightfully so, because I can't say that I have any kind of belief. My road to arriving at this I have presented in TIO: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums...ge=4&highlight=How+did+you+find+your+religion

When my son was born 27 years ago, I refused to have him baptized in church, because that, to me, would have inhibited him later in life. At that time in life, though, I was still a "searcher". I didn't believe then, and still do not believe, that a parent has a right to swear a newborn into a bielief the child later in life realizes is wrong for him/her. Got a lot of criticism for that choice too.

When he was some 4-5 years old he started with the usual questions one gets from kids that age; "Where do I come from?" I bought a book, in Swedish called Så blev du till (How you were made), by Lennart Nilsson, a photographer (here's a link to read about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Nilsson. )

The book is filled with pictures, taken from inside the womb, of a fetus and its growth. The book also explains about conception. My son loved this book, and used to touch my belly and proudly declare "I've been inside there!"

You can not even begin to imagine all the crap I got from the people at the daycare center for this. I was accused of both blasphemy and abuse; showing porn to a child. WHAT PORN???? How can pictures of a growing fetus be porn? And this in Sweden, of all countries, that is supposed to be so liberal.

Whenever my son asked me questions about various subjects we went to the book-store and searched for relevant literature, preferably with pictures. I tried not to influence his thinking in any other way than to provide him with the necessary material to find his own opinion.

He grew older, and at age 14 it was time for confirmation. He asked me whether he should get confirmed. I tried, as best I could, to explain what in meant and also told him that if he wanted to go through with it, it was fine by me, but that the choice had to be his own. I also said that he would have to get baptized first. He asked me about God, and I said that it was the one question I had no answer to. I suggested he should talk to his friends, and perhaps a couple of priests before he made up his mind.

Two weeks later he said; "Mom. I don't think that the god-thing is for me." I was grateful, in a sense, that he didn't choose religion at that time in his life. Thought that he was still too young to decide. Had he chosen differently, though, I wouldn't have stood in his way. It is his life, and he needs to make up his own mind about things.

I remember when I was 14, and the time came for confirmation. Now, you all need to understand that Sweden is a protestant country, and this whole confirmation-thingy is made more for tradition rather than conviction. Anyhow, the local preist came to our school and tried to convince everyone to go through with it. Not a very hard thing to do for him, because most kids get big gifts from their families doing it.

I said no, because I didn't believe, not in God, and especially not in the church. The priest tried, and tried again, to convince me to go through with it anyway, because it would make his statistics look brilliant!?! I asked him if he honestly tried to influence me to step into the church and lie my way through a holy ceremony just to make his records look good. At least he had the decency to blush at that, and to stop his arguments.

I completely agree with loquax that we shouldn't indoctrinate children with ideas. And that goes for political ideas too. I've seen demonstrations where kids are made to carry banners with political statements of various kinds, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

aruna · Apr 18, 2007

Melisande said:
I completely agree with loquax that we shouldn't indoctrinate children with ideas. And that goes for political ideas too. I've seen demonstrations where kids are made to carry banners with political statements of various kinds, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

I did not indoctrinate my children with ideas. However, I taught them how they can find their own spirituality; I gave them complete access and information as to my own spiritual path, I took them to India to an ashram with me and told them of the beauty and complete satisfaction I have found from my spiritual path, and let them know that in my life without spirirtuality I was lost and miserable and stuck in destructive ways. I taught them how to pray and how to turn their minds towards the life force within them, how to find strength and confidence from within.

Neither of them were baptised or in any way initiated into any formal religion, though they have been exposed to both Christianity and Hinduism. They have received guidance without force; and both have turned out very well.

My daughter, who is almost 17, is spiritual without belonging to any religion; she is an extraordinarily poised and balanced person, completely at home within herself, confident and with none of the usual neediness and insecurity of teenagers. For instance, she is the only one of her friends who has not started smoking. She is so reliable and mature that I have allowed her to live by herself; ie with her brother (21), in England while I live in Germany. They are doing well.

My son, who is rebellious by nature, had several teenage years of total dysfunction and madness. He dropeed out of school and was on the straight path into delinquency, in trouble with the police a couple of times, and totally into drug culture. Then suddenly he began asking questions and accepting my answers. On his own initiative he began looking for answers to his problems in Buddhist and Hindu teachings. He began doing TaiChi and Yoga, which calmed him down no end. Now he is at the other extreme; studying towards a BSc in Acupuncture, and totally dedicated to a spiritual path; a very fine young man with great ideals and ambitions.

I believe that children need spiritual guidance without force or indoctriniation; "exposure" is the word I use, which could be from within a religion, or without. If they "feel" the benefits of a religion, of course they should be allowed to follow up on it! But if they are exposed to - nothing - then nothing will be the result, which was the case with me. Nothing; an inner vacuum. Of course, if the parents have no religion or own spiritual path to offer than the question is moot!

Zoombie · Apr 18, 2007

Hey, Melisande, my parent's did the same thing with me. They got me books on all religions, on science, on space, on everything. This was helped by the fact that I have been and always will be a voracious reader. And after seeing all the religions and all the science as I could cram into my head at the tender age of 10 and up (which is not nearly enough, now that I think about it), I came up with the breathtakingly spiritual and self fulfilling answer of: "Mom, can I go play Zelda?"

Looking back, that was actually a wise thing to do. I successfully avoided pigeonholing myself for another seven years. Then I had two years of screaming arguments with one of my best friends, who is Catholic, about god and the non-resistances of god. I had decided on Atheism. Now these arguments were half fun, half serious, and went on for about a year. And then we both realized, “What the hey ho? We're still friends, even if we believe different things.” And we started playing Alien Vrs Predator 2 (notice a pattern here?)

But now I've moved from atheism into a very relaxed religion I call “Jesusisem”

Jesusisem, as I call it, is following the very basic, most fundamental part of Christianity (and most religions, now that I think about it), and that is: “Wouldn't it be neat if we were nice to one another for a change?”

I don't believe in God. Er...I sorta, kinda don't believe in God. But I do believe that being nice to people, helping them and generally being as “Jesusy” as possible is a good thing to do. The way I sees it is “If we just got one life, we've got to make the best of it.”

As one person in my math class asked me, once she found I was an atheist, “So...you just live for yourself?”

“No,” I said. “I live for being nice to people. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I can't be nice.”

Side note: Anyone else want to join Jesusisem? I'm accepting any and all applicants. All you need to do is send me five dollars! Just five single dollars!

Sean D. Schaffer · Apr 18, 2007

I would agree with Aruna in that showing children what works for us is a good thing. I would also agree with Loquax in that we should not indoctrinate children.

I believe indoctrinating a child is doing something like "Don't do such-and-such because G-d says not to". On the same token, telling a child "I personally find great satisfaction in this particular way of life" is something parents owe to their children. If a child does not know what works for their parents, they really won't have any basis for choosing what they wish to believe or not believe.

If you don't tell a child about religion, there is no way the child can decide for itself whether or not they believe that religion is right for them.

But here's where I would differ with you on this issue, Loquax. If I belonged to a religion that told me to raise my child a certain way or I would be punished for all Eternity ... and believed such a thing would happen ... then I would be more apt to raise my child the way my religion tells me to raise it, instead of trying to please other people. Whether I believe in a loving god or not, if I believe in a god who can destroy my soul in eternal torment, I will do everything I can not to go there.

So, although I understand where you're coming from, you'll find that, even if laws are passed to force parents not to tell their children about their religion or raise them up in that religion, there will always be people who raise their children within the said religion ... even if in defiance of human law ... so that when they answer to their deity, they will believe themselves to have a better chance of not incurring their deity's wrath.

As far as a loving god goes, I frankly answer your question this way: IF a deity loves its creation, it will do whatever it chooses to do to make sure its love is shown to the said creation. If its creation does not accept that, the deity is under no obligation to change the rules it lives by so its creation will change its mind.

My figuring, basically, is if a deity really is almighty, then it would not be so worried about whether or not we believe in it, or whether we worship it. The said deity, if it was real and if it was almighty, would naturally have no qualms about destroying its creation if it decided the said creation was doing something it demands not be done, and then making a new creation that would do everything the deity demanded.

Let's take the G-d of the Bible, for example. Acting not as a believer in this G-d (which I am in an Old Testament sense) but rather just arguing from common sense, would it not stand to reason IF the G-d of the Bible were really almighty and omnipotent, He would not give a hoot in Hell whether we worship Him or not, or whether we believe in Him or not. Using simple common sense, if He is almighty, certainly He does not need us to do things for Him.

But at the same time, if He is G-d, then He would make the rules, not we ourselves. We would not decide for ourselves how He should act; that would be solely His decision. Just like it's our decision whether or not we worship Him or another deity, so it's His decision whether or not He does things a certain way.

In the end, I think whether there is a loving god is irrelevant. Whether the G-d I worship loves me or merely tolerates me, that's His decision, not mine. As I choose whether or not to love Him, so He chooses whether or not to love me.

So my viewpoint is, if there is a loving god, then that god loves whom he wants to, and doesn't love whom he decides not to love. I know it's hard for some theists to grasp -- it was to me only a few months ago -- but it is nevertheless, a possibility ... if, for the sake of argument, this aforementioned god even exists.

And just so you know, I did not intend this post as an argument for or against your viewpoints; I simply wanted to share my opinion. I appreciate your having made the OP, and I thank you for giving your opinions.

Have a good day, Loquax.

Zoombie · Apr 18, 2007

It would all be much simplier if God was just a super powerful alien who had collided with the Voyager space probe and taken a black hole back through time to mess with our primordial soup. Why? Becuase then we woulden't have to find explinations and could just say, "He's an alien. He dosn't have to make sense."

Before anyone jumps on my back, know that it's late, I'm tired and that was supposed to be a joke.

I think it's funny.

Sean D. Schaffer · Apr 18, 2007

Zoombie said:
It would all be much simplier if God was just a super powerful alien who had collided with the Voyager space probe and taken a black hole back through time to mess with our primordial soup. Why? Becuase then we woulden't have to find explinations and could just say, "He's an alien. He dosn't have to make sense."

Before anyone jumps on my back, know that it's late, I'm tired and that was supposed to be a joke.

I think it's funny.

I think it's pretty funny too, Zoombie. Cool joke.

Zoombie · Apr 18, 2007

Okay. I was thinking, here. We all agree that we need to give children a guide. That's what parent's are. They're guids and rolemodles and providores. They are there for their children's future. Right?

But we also seem to agree that it's not a good idea to stick a kid into a single rut. So do all parent's need to find some kind of gray area that fits perfectly? So every parent needs to find their rut.

Sounds hard and complicated. I'm fishing for advice for when I become a dad, just so you know.

Sean D. Schaffer · Apr 19, 2007

Zoombie said:
Okay. I was thinking, here. We all agree that we need to give children a guide. That's what parent's are. They're guids and rolemodles and providores. They are there for their children's future. Right?

But we also seem to agree that it's not a good idea to stick a kid into a single rut. So do all parent's need to find some kind of gray area that fits perfectly? So every parent needs to find their rut.

Sounds hard and complicated. I'm fishing for advice for when I become a dad, just so you know.

Zoombie, when I was a child, my parents would tell me not to do something because they didn't want me to do it. They would never say "Don't do such-and-such because G-d said not to". When I was very young, my own viewpoint was, if my parents said it was wrong, that was good enough for me. In my early formative years we went to church, but my parents let me make the decision whether or not to follow their footsteps with becoming a Christian.

My point is, I believe you can show your children right from wrong without using a deity as the basis, while at the same time giving them the ability to make their own decision on what they really want to believe. It's not indoctrination to say, "I'm an atheist because I find it works for me", whereas it might be indoctrination to say "I'm an atheist because it's the only right way and you will become one too".

Show your children the path you follow, and tell them it works for you, but let them know also that whether they follow your ways is their choice and no one else's.

That's what I would suggest, when I look back on my own childhood. I hope this helps.

Good luck to you.

Zoombie · Apr 19, 2007

Got that.

Now alls I need to do is find a woman. Preferably one I'm in love with.

Sean D. Schaffer · Apr 19, 2007

Zoombie said:
Got that.

Now alls I need to do is find a woman. Preferably one I'm in love with.

Good one! I like your sense of humor.

:ROFL:

aruna · Apr 19, 2007

Sean D. Schaffer said:
My point is, I believe you can show your children right from wrong without using a deity as the basis, while at the same time giving them the ability to make their own decision on what they really want to believe.

For mne it wqs never about believing, or about teaching my children what to believe. It was always about experience; about self-knowledge and self-discipline, about having an anchor to my being that kept me on course for what was right FOR ME, about having a centre to my being that kept me from wobbling; and this is what I tried to pass on to my children.

I hate labels, and don't have one; any "ism" is anathema to me, including atheism. Children learn best by example, and if their parents don't convince them by the way they live than no amount of words, indoctrination (religious or ateistic), or manipulation can do so.

My parents atheist lives seemed so dry and empty, so devoid of any juice, that I knew from an early age that I didn't want to follow in their footsteps. I did my own "research" from my teens, rejecting all kinds of "ism" labels and philosophies till I found a practice that worked, that actually changed me and helped me out of my morass. It was my moral duty to give my children that option!

loquax · Apr 19, 2007

Sean D. Schaffer said:
But here's where I would differ with you on this issue, Loquax. If I belonged to a religion that told me to raise my child a certain way or I would be punished for all Eternity ... and believed such a thing would happen ... then I would be more apt to raise my child the way my religion tells me to raise it, instead of trying to please other people.

I don't think you're differing with me at all. This is true, and is perhaps the most unfortunate part of the whole thing. It's a vicious circle - parent indocrinated as a child -> indocrinates their own children.

The only way to break the circle involves shattering someone's faith - one can't intervene at the indocrination stage, as you explain. This, however, holds serious morality issues on my behalf. I have to balance my respect for one's faith with the opposite magnitude of my hate for indocrination.

P.S. It's very interesting learning people's different paths to the way they believe. I think one of Atheism's strongest aspects is that it has no doctrine. It's a belief that people naturally come to - which is impossible for most organised religions (you can't sit in a room and convert to christianity without the knowledge of the new testament, frex). It's a personal belief, much like aruna's talk of subjective spirituality. If anything, this is the way forward for belief systems in general. The poison I hate so much is in the self-sustaining nature of organised religion, where indoctrination is a natural and important part of the faith. I think, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the notion that God is vengeful to those who do not obey him. It's a terrible image to put in anyone's mind, let alone childrens'.

Devil Ledbetter · Apr 19, 2007

aruna said:
My parents atheist lives seemed so dry and empty, so devoid of any juice, that I knew from an early age that I didn't want to follow in their footsteps.

Aruna, you make me grateful to have been raised by juicy atheists. I'm glad you've been able to find a path that satisfies you.

aruna · Apr 19, 2007

Devil Ledbetter said:
Aruna, you make me grateful to have been raised by juicy atheists. I'm glad you've been able to find a path that satisfies you.

They sound delicious!

Mine were nice enough, but much too "brainy", if you know what I mean!

Melisande · Apr 19, 2007

Zoombie said:
Hey, Melisande, my parent's did the same thing with me. They got me books on all religions, on science, on space, on everything. This was helped by the fact that I have been and always will be a voracious reader. And after seeing all the religions and all the science as I could cram into my head at the tender age of 10 and up (which is not nearly enough, now that I think about it), I came up with the breathtakingly spiritual and self fulfilling answer of: "Mom, can I go play Zelda?"

I can't say that I gave my son books on everything and crammed his mind. We went together and looked for books on whatever subject he was curious of at the time. My son grew up mostly with his father, I only got to meet him every now and then. I respect his father a lot, but have to admit that he can be somewhat "dry" intellectually.

I still do the same thing with my son, though, but now over the Internet. He lives in Sweden, I live in the US. I miss our book-shopping sprees, but have almost as much fun browsing the web together with him. We communicate through a chatprogram. He still asks questions, and I still try to supply him with the basis of information he would need to find the answer himself.

Zoombie said:
But now I've moved from atheism into a very relaxed religion I call “Jesusisem”

I seems to me that Jesusism sounds like a good way to find one's God. My sister-in-law has a POV very much like yours. (Doubt she would pay you the five dollars, though, since she absolutely abhorres anything that's organized

) She is very happy confessing her faith in Jesus Christ, but always equally eager to express her distrust in religions.

Zoombie said:
As one person in my math class asked me, once she found I was an atheist, “So...you just live for yourself?”

I think you might hit the nail on the head there. I meet a lot of people who, when the subject arises, express the same attitude. I goes along with other misconceptions that I have expressed elsewhere in this forum. All in all I think all people should realize that whether we believe, or not believe at all, we all have a right to free thinking.

Zoombie said:
“No,” I said. “I live for being nice to people. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I can't be nice.”

I am not nice all the time. That is not for me. But I try to always show respect for my fellow man. But I don't live for it. I just live, period.

Melisande · Apr 19, 2007

aruna said:
I believe that children need spiritual guidance without force or indoctriniation; "exposure" is the word I use, which could be from within a religion, or without. If they "feel" the benefits of a religion, of course they should be allowed to follow up on it! But if they are exposed to - nothing - then nothing will be the result, which was the case with me. Nothing; an inner vacuum. Of course, if the parents have no religion or own spiritual path to offer than the question is moot!

It is very hard to give a child "spiritual guidence" when one has no positive spiritual experience by oneself. The only thing to do, I beleive, is to try and give the child an open mind.

I have to admit, that when both parents lack in faith it is almost impossible to even bring the subject to surface, because it would be too far fetched. It would not be the natural thing to do, to bring the child to a church, or in your case - an Ashram - if it didn't have a meaning in one's own life.

I have to say, though, that you sound like a wonderful parent, Aruna! What you give them, that might have more impact in their lives than faith, though, is trust! You have shown them that you trust their judjements, their abilities and their choices. I dare say that it is something very unusual! And very positive! Any child that receives that from a parent must grow into harmonious, self-confident people.

Melisande · Apr 19, 2007

Sean D. Schaffer said:
My point is, I believe you can show your children right from wrong without using a deity as the basis, while at the same time giving them the ability to make their own decision on what they really want to believe. It's not indoctrination to say, "I'm an atheist because I find it works for me", whereas it might be indoctrination to say "I'm an atheist because it's the only right way and you will become one too".

I couldn't agree more! You express it very well. The only thing I would like to add is that for me, and I wish to point out that I represent no one else, I use the word atheist in this forum to describe my lack of belief. I hardly ever use that word in "real life". I honestly think that when one truly is an atheist, that the word "atheism" is as meaningless as "Catholic" for instance.

This whole "AA-meeting" self-labelling thingy is not the way I perceive how people act. If I come to someones house, people don't greet me by saying; "My name is Abe and I'm a Hindu." Same with parents. I don't think that one day the parents simply say at the dinnertable to their whatever age child; "I'm an atheist, you have to (or don't have to) be one to."

I believe that most children get introduced to religion, or the lack there-of, in a very natural step-by-step kind of way. If the parents pray, the child learns how to pray. If they don't, the child might not either, unless presented with prayer somewhere else.

Sean D. Schaffer said:
But here's where I would differ with you on this issue, Loquax. If I belonged to a religion that told me to raise my child a certain way or I would be punished for all Eternity ... and believed such a thing would happen ... then I would be more apt to raise my child the way my religion tells me to raise it, instead of trying to please other people. Whether I believe in a loving god or not, if I believe in a god who can destroy my soul in eternal torment, I will do everything I can not to go there.

I believe that you are right. Some religions seem to "take over" in peoples lives, become such an intricate part of it, that any other way of thinking is simply - unthinkable.

Sean D. Schaffer · Apr 19, 2007

Melisande said:
I couldn't agree more! You express it very well. The only thing I would like to add is that for me, and I wish to point out that I represent no one else, I use the word atheist in this forum to describe my lack of belief. I hardly ever use that word in "real life". I honestly think that when one truly is an atheist, that the word "atheism" is as meaningless as "Catholic" for instance.

I think that's one of the problems a lot of theists (myself included) have with labels. We seem to want to label people so we know where the labeled individual stands. It's really quite a sad prospect, but I'm learning how to change; it's just going to take some time, but I'll get there.

This whole "AA-meeting" self-labelling thingy is not the way I perceive how people act. If I come to someones house, people don't greet me by saying; "My name is Abe and I'm a Hindu." Same with parents. I don't think that one day the parents simply say at the dinnertable to their whatever age child; "I'm an atheist, you have to (or don't have to) be one to."

You know? I don't think I ever heard it like that before I came to these boards and heard it here for the first time. It definitely makes sense, though, because for me, saying "My name is Sean and I'm a Noahide" would only bring out of the woodwork those trying to convert me back to my old religion. I don't need that, and I see now where the labels could be used against the person using them.

I believe that most children get introduced religion, or the lack there-of, in a very natural step-by-step kind of way. If the parents pray, the child learns how to pray. If they don't, the child might not either, unless presented with prayer somewhere else.

That's basically how I was introduced to religion. My parents went to church a little bit but we weren't really active until I was about 13 or 14 years old. Ironically, it was at that time when the indoctrination started with me, and those were the ten worst years of my life.

Early on, my life was not great but not horrible either. I had my problems like any kid does. But I saw my parents praying, or going to church, and dressing up all fancy for it, and it made me wonder, 'What's so special about this church thing that you dress up for it?' That's really what introduced me to religion as a youngster.

I believe that you are right. Some religions seem to "take over" in peoples lives, become such an intricate part of it, that any other way of thinking is simply - unthinkable.

Indeed. Over the years, from the ages of 14 to 24, the indoctrination was everywhere for me. The problem was, I loved the church I went to at the time because it seemed so alive. What I didn't recognize at the time was the abuse that had escalated in my own life shortly after we started going to that church. It was a far cry from what I had been brought up in throughout my earlier years. The change was like night and day; in my earlier years, it was, "Come to Jesus if you want to", whereas in those ten hellish years, it was "Do as we say or you're going to hell".

The point here is that during those ten hellish years, the religion I served at the time was so much a part of my life, that I could not think about anything else, night or day. Had I become a parent or been married at the time, I can assure you my way of ruling the house would have been completely based upon that church's teachings and I would have been tyrannical in my ways.

Nowadays, I belong to a religion that does not even seek converts, let alone try to indoctrinate people. It's much easier for me to live this way because the strain and the drive to convert everyone in the whole wide world to my way of thinking, simply is not there. Religion has basically taken a back seat to the idea of living a righteous life simply for the sake of doing so.

And the thought that I'm responsible only for my own actions is also very relieving. That way I don't end up indoctrinating children ... if I ever have any ... out of fear for my own soul.

Melisande · Apr 19, 2007

Sean D. Schaffer said:
Nowadays, I belong to a religion that does not even seek converts, let alone try to indoctrinate people. It's much easier for me to live this way because the strain and the drive to convert everyone in the whole wide world to my way of thinking, simply is not there. Religion has basically taken a back seat to the idea of living a righteous life simply for the sake of doing so.

I am happy for you!

On Labels

I verb nouns adverbly

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

I verb nouns adverbly

On a wing and a prayer

I verb nouns adverbly

On a wing and a prayer

On a wing and a prayer

Dragon of the Multiverse

Dragon of the Multiverse

Dragon of the Multiverse

Dragon of the Multiverse

On a wing and a prayer

I verb nouns adverbly

Come on you stranger, you legend,

On a wing and a prayer