Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[Brian63]

When you refer to "their right" are you talking about their legal right? I respect their legal right to believe strange things as well. Nobody is suggesting that those be taken away.

What other right do you mean? If their bad beliefs are harming themselves, harming me and/or harming others around them then we should be more outspoken and critical of those bad beliefs. Some may hold a belief that their young child should be indoctrinated and pressured into believing certain doctrines. That viewpoint harms the child. It can cause lingering effects of bitterness and other emotional issues as they grow up. In those cases, should we outsiders intervene in any way at all? Or should we just put it to the side and say that it is A-Ok that the person indoctrinate and harm their children?

Being critical of the doctrines and the beliefs of various religions is not an exhaustive solution to the problems we face, but it should be one component of it.

 

[skepticalbip]

You must live in some other world. All children are 'indoctrinated' into their culture. The morality of a society is determined by that culture. Outliers in the society are pressured to conform by that society. There is nothing inherently wrong with a religious society. I can and do certainly disagree with the cultural norms of some specific religious societies but I understand that the disagreement comes from the fact that they are contradiction to the cultural norms that my society dictates.

The moral codes that you think should be given to some child would be indoctrination of that child to accept what you 'believe' is correct. Are you arguing that your societal norms are universally correct (the religious would call this 'god given') and any that disagree are wrong?

 

[Ruth Harris]

To be honest, I feel a little like Daniel entering the lion’s den – but maybe it is time for a believer to enter this discussion.

Brian63, the one thing that kept running through my mind when reading your posts was “Who is saying that atheists should be shrinking violets when it comes to conversations about faith?” I honestly don’t know anyone personally who has that opinion – and those on the religious far right are usually downright gleeful to go toe to toe with a staunch atheist who publicly voices their stance. In most cases both of them are frankly wasting their time since neither one is willing to actually listen to the other but instead is fixated on only making their point. That is not a conversation; that is two soliloquies.

Most of the Christians I know (including myself) are more than willing to have a real conversation with those outside their faith – including atheists. But the one thing we are not willing to suffer is being treated like we are ignorant or deluded simply because we have faith in God. Calling someone names or displaying an attitude that implies that will never have the slightest impact on changing someone’s personal beliefs, be they a believer or an atheist.

So, yes – open, frank, respectful conversation is always welcome. Derogatory statements or attitudes about the person are not, and this applies to both sides. I have defended atheists when people I know say things such as “All atheists are stupid” and have made it very clear that they are completely wrong. I would expect no less from an honest atheist if they heard the same thing about all believers.

Some may hold a belief that their young child should be indoctrinated and pressured into believing certain doctrines. That viewpoint harms the child. It can cause lingering effects of bitterness and other emotional issues as they grow up..

You cannot prove that any particular viewpoint will cause harm to a child. This is true whether it is faith based or atheistic. Turn this around; how would you feel if a believer felt perfectly free to interfere with your indoctrination of the atheist worldview into your child? Parents have certain rights, and they are inviolable unless they are causing actual physical harm to the child. I will grant you that there are people out there who do say things to children in violation of their upbringing but typically this is easily handled by the parent privately in conversation with their child. Children trust their parents more than they trust anyone else, as long as the relationship between them is good. If it isn’t, the parent has more problems than just someone saying things they don’t want their child to believe.

Ruth

 

[Brian63]

You must live in some other world.

Did you want to have a friendly conversation about this, or just go swinging right away at each other? I did not insult you at all, so am unclear why you chose to do so to me.

All children are 'indoctrinated' into their culture. The morality of a society is determined by that culture. Outliers in the society are pressured to conform by that society. There is nothing inherently wrong with a religious society. I can and do certainly disagree with the cultural norms of some specific religious society but I understand that the disagreement comes from the fact that they are contradiction to the cultural norms that my society dictates.

Do you think that some cultural norms should be adopted over other cultural norms that are in conflict with it? I would favor cultural norms that did not instill into young children what they are supposed to believe regarding invisible supernatural deities. If someone favors a cultural norm that says we should instill that into young children, I would not only have a distaste for that idea but verbally be critical of it.

It is not as if all ideas have equal merit, all norms have equal merit, all belief systems have equal merit. Some clearly are better or worse than others.

The moral codes that you think should be given to some child would be indoctrination of that child to accept what you 'believe' is correct. Are you arguing that your societal norms are absolutely correct (the religious would call this 'god given') and all others are wrong?

I do not understand the question or its relevance. I think my opinions are correct on what the best societal norms would be. Still, I think it extremely likely that I am also wrong about many of my beliefs and views. When a better justification is revealed for a different societal norm and why it should be adopted, I try to remain open-minded and willing to change my view.

 

[Brian63]

Most of the Christians I know (including myself) are more than willing to have a real conversation with those outside their faith – including atheists. But the one thing we are not willing to suffer is being treated like we are ignorant or deluded simply because we have faith in God. Calling someone names or displaying an attitude that implies that will never have the slightest impact on changing someone’s personal beliefs, be they a believer or an atheist.

Hi Ruth, that is fine with me. Many people who are very close to me are very religious, with even fundamentalist religious viewpoints. Sometimes we have engaged in discussions about it (brought up by either one of us) and those conversations were very enjoyable and enlightening.

It is important to see the massive difference between being critical of a belief and being insulting towards a person who holds that belief. When I am advocating being critical of religious beliefs, that does not in the slightest mean that I advocate insulting them personally. Religions are very successful at intertwining those 2 concepts, and the adherents adopt the religious doctrines as part of their own personal identity, so any criticism of their beliefs is unfortunately interpreted as a personal attack as well. They really are very different though.

I would expect no less from an honest atheist if they heard the same thing about all believers.

What does that have to do with my position though? Have you ever seen me state that I think all believers are stupid? That is not what I actually believe.

You cannot prove that any particular viewpoint will cause harm to a child.

We can still draw reasonable inferences though, even if it does not amount to outright proof.

This is true whether it is faith based or atheistic. Turn this around; how would you feel if a believer felt perfectly free to interfere with your indoctrination of the atheist worldview into your child? Parents have certain rights,...

I am not advocating that parents not be allowed to indoctrinate their children. Just that if they do so, that atheists be more willing to point out they are doing so, and the harm that it can (and likely will) inflict on those children. Nobody is saying anything about taking children out of those parents' custody. Just being more willing to openly criticize bad beliefs, bad justifications for them, and bad consequences of them.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hi Ruth, that is fine with me. Many people who are very close to me are very religious, with even fundamentalist religious viewpoints. Sometimes we have engaged in discussions about it (brought up by either one of us) and those conversations were very enjoyable and enlightening.

It is important to see the massive difference between being critical of a belief and being insulting towards a person who holds that belief. When I am advocating being critical of religious beliefs, that does not in the slightest mean that I advocate insulting them personally. Religions are very successful at intertwining those 2 concepts, and the adherents adopt the religious doctrines as part of their own personal identity, so any criticism of their beliefs is unfortunately interpreted as a personal attack as well. They really are very different though.

I agree completely with you on this. Do keep in mind that these statements are also true of some atheists; they consider it an attack on them personally when someone questions their stance.

What does that have to do with my position though? Have you ever seen me state that I think all believers are stupid? That is not what I actually believe.

I did not say that you held this position. But I have seen many others on both sides of the faith debate that do.

You cannot prove that any particular viewpoint will cause harm to a child.

We can still draw reasonable inferences though, even if it does not amount to outright proof.

This is true whether it is faith based or atheistic. Turn this around; how would you feel if a believer felt perfectly free to interfere with your indoctrination of the atheist worldview into your child? Parents have certain rights,...

I am not advocating that parents not be allowed to indoctrinate their children. Just that if they do so, that atheists be more willing to point out they are doing so, and the harm that it can (and likely will) inflict on those children. Nobody is saying anything about taking children out of those parents' custody. Just being more willing to openly criticize bad beliefs, bad justifications for them, and bad consequences of them.

You are making unwarranted assumptions here. To the best of my knowledge there have been no studies that show children are psychologically harmed by being raised in a particular faith family. You are more than welcome to your opinion on this, but I don't know of any research to buttress the opinion that raising a child in a religious household is likely to cause harm to that child.

Ruth

 

[Brian63]

How about firsthand accounts from those children (now adults) who admit holding feelings of anger, bitterness, fear, etc.? I have seen and read personal testimonies of atheists who have given their deconversion testimonies and relay them.

My own personal religious upbringing was very liberal and not conservative or fundamentalist by any stretch, but I can see, especially now in hindsight, some damage that it had done to my psyche. It made me afraid somewhat of questioning my own beliefs, to doubt what I was being indoctrinated into, to being afraid of going to hell for questioning even whether a god existed, etc.

I explained it in a bit more detail in a recent atheist testimony thread.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17964-Atheist-testimony-part-2

So yes, it does indeed happen.

 

[Ruth Harris]

How about firsthand accounts from those children (now adults) who admit holding feelings of anger, bitterness, fear, etc.? I have seen and read personal testimonies of atheists who have given their deconversion testimonies and relay them.

My own personal religious upbringing was very liberal and not conservative or fundamentalist by any stretch, but I can see, especially now in hindsight, some damage that it had done to my psyche. It made me afraid somewhat of questioning my own beliefs, to doubt what I was being indoctrinated into, to being afraid of going to hell for questioning even whether a god existed, etc.

I explained it in a bit more detail in a recent atheist testimony thread.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17964-Atheist-testimony-part-2

So yes, it does indeed happen.

I should have been more clear on what I was saying. I am sure that there are some children who felt they suffered ill effects from their upbringing in a faith. The converse is also possible; children raised in an atheist family believing they suffered from that once they became believers as adults. But this does not mean that it is "likely" to happen to all children in either case. That is where I think you are making unwarranted assumptions.

Ruth

 

[Brian63]

But this does not mean that it is "likely" to happen to all children in either case. That is where I think you are making unwarranted assumptions.

That is not my position at all though. Plenty of children grow up in fairly secular households and stay secular throughout their lives. Some are relatively happy with that, some are relatively unhappy and become more religious. Likewise, some children raised in fundamentalist households later became adults with the same views and are satisfied with that, some are dissatisfied with that. I do not recall stating any position that any of those scenarios is more likely than the others.

What I do advocate is that children be taught the tools of logic and how to think (rather than just *what* to think), and to learn that it is emotionally okay to doubt one's own beliefs, to disagree with their parents and think about why, and to change their own beliefs.

Basically, the antithesis of indoctrinating children into dogmatic beliefs.

 

[Ruth Harris]

But this does not mean that it is "likely" to happen to all children in either case. That is where I think you are making unwarranted assumptions.

That is not my position at all though.

Okay, now I am confused. This is a direct quote from one of your previous posts:

...the harm that it can (and likely will) inflict on those children.

You specifically used the words "likely will". Did you not mean to say that?

Ruth

 

[Brian63]

I think it is likely that religious indoctrination will do harm to themselves and others. Whether the child (now adult) realizes and becomes self-aware of that harm is something I hold no view on. Plenty of people are blissfully ignorant of the harm their beliefs do to themselves and others.

In the future you may catch me word-slipping up on that distinction, but hopefully this will make the actual point clearer.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I think it is likely that religious indoctrination will do harm to themselves and others.

I am still confused. This is the statement that I was addressing.

So let's try this. To make things as simple as possible, these are the words you used and my reply to those exact words:

You said:

Some may hold a belief that their young child should be indoctrinated and pressured into believing certain doctrines. That viewpoint harms the child. It can cause lingering effects of bitterness and other emotional issues as they grow up.

I said, in reply to that:

You cannot prove that any particular viewpoint will cause harm to a child. This is true whether it is faith based or atheistic. Turn this around; how would you feel if a believer felt perfectly free to interfere with your indoctrination of the atheist worldview into your child? Parents have certain rights,...

You replied:

We can still draw reasonable inferences though, even if it does not amount to outright proof....Just that if they do so, that atheists be more willing to point out they are doing so, and the harm that it can (and likely will) inflict on those children.

My response:

You are making unwarranted assumptions here. To the best of my knowledge there have been no studies that show children are psychologically harmed by being raised in a particular faith family. You are more than welcome to your opinion on this, but I don't know of any research to buttress the opinion that raising a child in a religious household is likely to cause harm to that child.

Your reply:

How about firsthand accounts from those children (now adults) who admit holding feelings of anger, bitterness, fear, etc.?

My response:

But this does not mean that it is "likely" to happen to all children in either case. That is where I think you are making unwarranted assumptions.

Your reply (this is where things started to get confusing for me):

That is not my position at all though.

To me, it looks like you completely reversed your original statement about children being harmed by a religious upbringing. I am saying that this is an unsupported opinion on your part, with no research to back it up. And then it looks like you switched sides again with your next post, quoted at the top of this one.

Please tell me what I am misunderstanding.

Ruth

 

[Brian63]

To sum up, you are asking me to provide references in scientific journals that show that religious indoctrination is likely to do harm to a child and others. Otherwise we should not believe that it is likely to harm a child and others. Only scientific journals can be used as evidence. Nothing else counts. Is that right? Before proceeding, I want to make sure I am understanding what you are looking for. Thanks.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

To me, it looks like you completely reversed your original statement about children being harmed by a religious upbringing. I am saying that this is an unsupported opinion on your part, with no research to back it up. And then it looks like you switched sides again with your next post, quoted at the top of this one.

Please tell me what I am misunderstanding.

Ruth

I gotta agree with you. Brian63 seems to be struggling unsuccessfully to make a coherent argument.

Certainly some children have difficulties in adulthood caused by their upbringing. But this is true regardless of the society, culture, or affiliations of the parents. To single out some religious families that have maladjusted children and blame religion in general is a gross logical fallacy. It would be as easy (and illogical) to point out religious families that have well adjusted children and atheist families that have maladjusted children as evidence that atheism is the cause.

 

[Brian63]

Brian63 seems to be struggling unsuccessfully to make a coherent argument.

So there will be no attempts at keeping this exchange courteous and civil then. Do you want to go straight to making it personal and derogatory?

Certainly some children have difficulties in adulthood caused by their upbringing. But this is true regardless of the society, culture, or affiliations of the parents.

Your evidence for that claim?

Are you saying that society, culture, and parental affiliation are not factors in the difficulties of the children?

To single out some religious families that have maladjusted children and blame religion in general is a gross logical fallacy.

Please read again. That is not what I was doing. I was using examples where the religious influence specifically could be isolated as being a cause of distress. I am not saying that some children grow up terribly in religious households and therefore all religion is bad. What I am saying is that we can observe the effects of religious indoctrination has had on certain people, while still being aware that it will have different effects on others. I never made the generalization that you attribute to me, and do not believe that. It is a strawman.

 

[skepticalbip]

So there will be no attempts at keeping this exchange courteous and civil then. Do you want to go straight to making it personal and derogatory?

There is nothing personal nor derogatory in reading through your posts and noting that you keep changing your approach to demeaning religion when they are shown to be incorrect.

Your evidence for that claim?

Are you saying that society, culture, and parental affiliation are not factors in the difficulties of the children?

To single out some religious families that have maladjusted children and blame religion in general is a gross logical fallacy.

Please read again. That is not what I was doing. I was using examples where the religious influence specifically could be isolated as being a cause of distress. I am not saying that some children grow up terribly in religious households and therefore all religion is bad. What I am saying is that we can observe the effects of religious indoctrination has had on certain people, while still being aware that it will have different effects on others. I never made the generalization that you attribute to me, and do not believe that. It is a strawman.

Exactly, specific examples in specific cases to declare a general truth. That is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of composition.

 

[Brian63]

...specific examples in specific cases to declare a general truth. That is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of composition.

It would be a fallacy if it was used deductively, to make a claim with mathematical certainty.

It is not a fallacy though when used inductively. There, it is referred to as "evidence." If you have eaten ketchup on various meals 100 times before and have enjoyed that taste in each of those times, it is likely that you would similarly enjoy it on the 101st attempt with another meal. We cannot guarantee with deductive certainty that you will, but the empirical data points in that direction still and renders it a reasonable inference.


Another example: If investigators of a murder found a suspect who was on videotape committing the murder, found emails where she planned details on carrying out the murder, found the weapon in her possession upon her arrest, etc. that would be "evidence" to suggest she committed the murder. It is a reasonable inference of the available data. We cannot know with certainty that she did (especially if she denied it and said the whole thing was a conspiracy or setup), but we can still establish evidence and draw reasonable inferences from it.

 

[Ruth Harris]

To sum up, you are asking me to provide references in scientific journals that show that religious indoctrination is likely to do harm to a child and others. Otherwise we should not believe that it is likely to harm a child and others. Only scientific journals can be used as evidence. Nothing else counts. Is that right? Before proceeding, I want to make sure I am understanding what you are looking for. Thanks.

No, not precisely. I have two separate things to discuss about my post.

First, I am baffled that you start by stating that religious indoctrination by parents can and likely will inflict harm on a child - but later stated in response to me that this was not your opinion at all. Please tell me where I am misunderstanding your statements as they are mutually exclusive.

Second, not all research is contained in scientific journals. I found this very interesting article in Quartz:

https://qz.com/1301084/should-you-raise-your-kids-religious-heres-what-the-science-says/

It touches on some of my objections to your statement that it is more than likely a child will suffer harm when raised in a religious home.

But aside from that, typically atheists ask for proof when Christians make a statement regarding their faith. I am simply asking if you can support your opinion with objective research since I don't agree with your conclusion and I don't know of any studies on this particular subject.

Ruth

 

[skepticalbip]

...specific examples in specific cases to declare a general truth. That is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of composition.

It would be a fallacy if it was used deductively, to make a claim with mathematical certainty.

It is not a fallacy though when used inductively. There, it is referred to as "evidence." If you have eaten ketchup on various meals 100 times before and have enjoyed that taste in each of those times, it is likely that you would similarly enjoy it on the 101st attempt with another meal. We cannot guarantee with deductive certainty that you will, but the empirical data points in that direction still and renders it a reasonable inference.

That is a specific example to indicate a specific truth. It indicates that you will likely enjoy ketchup on the 101st try. It does not mean that even most people, much less all people, will enjoy ketchup. Change ketchup to horseradish (and there are people who like horseradish) and see how much of a general truth, "horseradish is delicious' is.

Another example: If investigators of a murder found a suspect who was on videotape committing the murder, found emails where she planned details on carrying out the murder, found the weapon in her possession upon her arrest, etc. that would be "evidence" to suggest she committed the murder. It is a reasonable inference of the available data. We cannot know with certainty that she did (especially if she denied it and said the whole thing was a conspiracy or setup), but we can still establish evidence and draw reasonable inferences from it.

WTF? That makes no sense. You are once again giving specific examples to indicate a specific truth. It says nothing about women in general.

Maybe you are having trouble understanding the meaning of a general truth. Just because some religions have some members with maladjusted children does not point to a general truth that all in that religion, much less any other religion, will all have maladjusted children.

 

[Brian63]

First, I am baffled that you start by stating that religious indoctrination by parents can and likely will inflict harm on a child - but later stated in response to me that this was not your opinion at all. Please tell me where I am misunderstanding your statements as they are mutually exclusive.

Okay. Thank you for your kind tone as well.

I agree with the original sentiment that religious indoctrination is more likely to do harm to the child and others than not, all else being equal.

The second view I hold has a subtle distinction from the first---the first is about whether indoctrination does harm to the child and others, while the second is about whether the child and others *ARE AWARE OF* the harm being done by the indoctrination.

Second, not all research is contained in scientific journals.

Agreed. Most of us probably do not spend the entirety of our days going through scientific journals, but we can still draw some reasonable conclusions.

<referring to the article>...It touches on some of my objections to your statement that it is more than likely a child will suffer harm when raised in a religious home.

I will try to take a read of that later tonight, and respond more then.

But aside from that, typically atheists ask for proof when Christians make a statement regarding their faith. I am simply asking if you can support your opinion with objective research since I don't agree with your conclusion and I don't know of any studies on this particular subject.

No, I cannot cite "objective research" on that. I also cannot cite objective research to support the view that Neptune is not populated with invisible gremlins. I still believe those to be the case though. We gather our own local empirical observations and draw inferences from them about how the world works in general. We do not use "objective research" for every belief that is still reasonable to believe.

Curious---you mention you don't agree with my conclusion. Do you think my conclusion is wrong (and if so, why?) or are you moreso undecided on whether religious indoctrination harms children and others?