children can make their own mind up about religion when they grow up...

[AliGrylls]

Okay I have just read this on another thread but this is a statement I hear quite a lot and want to ask the question.

If all you teach your child is atheism how will they make their mind up about religion when they grow up because they have no religion other than atheism?

They will know nothing other than what you have taught them so they have nothing to make their mind up about - they will be atheist, by default. If people genuinely want their children to make their own mind up they have to provide them with a reasonable alternative (ie, Judaism / Christianity / Islam).

I don't actually know any adults who have been brought up atheist who have thought all of a sudden "I believe in God, I am going to go to Church".

Exactly. Be sure to beat your child with a stick when they're young. Then, when they're older, they'll be so terrified of another beating that they'll do what you want as soon as you mention it.

Snorbs

My fear was always that this proverb was recommending beating wilful teenagers.

Now it's been taken back to the source text for me I see that it was actually recommending beating toddlers.

You cannot begin to imagine my relief.

No wonder it's called the Good Book!

It is incredibly arrogant to say that atheism is not a belief system. It is a belief system that says 'there is no God and belief in him is misguided' (putting it mildly based on some of the very illiberal things I have read on here). Basically you are putting yourself and your children on a pedestal and saying only you are in a position to judge all these 'silly' religions objectively. What???? That belief is really scary because you are the one sitting in judgement on everyone else. You are the worst kind of fundamentalist because no-one with any faith can challenge you because you have this kind of rational superiority which denies that you even have any beliefs because what you think is just true!

Everyone has a belief system whether it is an organised religion or not and we each believe what we believe to be true. Lets just admit that and debate it respectfully. I find being a Christian in this country increasingly frightening because of the agression and vitriol of these New Atheists (see Karen Armstrong). It is ironic because they have become unthinking fundamentalists - the very thing they claim to detest.

No it really isn't, thats just you adding in a whole lot of prejudices about what you percieve athiests to be.

Atheism is plain and simple a LACK of belief in a GOD or GODS. Thats it. Atheists may or may not have other ideas and beliefs about a variery of things, that does not change the meaning of the word.

Your bizarre rants about something you do not undertstand at a fundamental level just makes you look rather silly. I don't automatically extrapolate from this that all christians are rather silly, as I'm not as one dimensional as you seem to be.

Ohmydays is right though. Atheism is a belief system despite what atheists would have us think. It states that there is no God - it is a belief, not a fact and of course atheists base other opinions and actions upon that belief. Have you read Dawkins? If atheism is an absence of belief how can he write so many books on the subject? There wouldn't be anything worth saying surely? He finds so much to write about because he write about his opinion and that is all it is.

Listen to a lot of atheist on these threads and they would have you believe that there version of events is fact, that how and why existence of world and the universe came into being is known and understood and therefore a belief in a God is ludicrous but actually none of us know the answers to these questions. Science provides no answers for this and yet science is so often paraded around like it is the fountain of all knowledge. There is so much we don't know that how anybody can be certain about the existence of a God or not is beyond me.

No, she's not. Its really very simple. Atheism means no belief in a god. Its a default setting, it barely needs a word, so little does it really mean. We don;t have a word for people who don't believe in unicorns, or faeries. It just means that I don't think something that has never been seen or proven exists.

IT is categorically not a belief system. REally, its not an argument, its not a "you must think the same as me" setting. It is a distinct LACK of a thing, not a thing.

Not sure how much clearer it can be made. Perhaps you should look at your need to create a belief system for others and insist you know better what their ideas are.

PS LOL @ "science is paraded around as the fountain of all knowledge". You guys just crack me up.

Niecie et al

Obviously atheism cannot be proved as a position. We could all get to the point of death, find a man with a white beard waiting for us, arms crossed, foot tapping, and think, "oh, bollocks, I was wrong."

BUT - and it's a big but - the atheist position is consistent with the most current understanding of how the universe works. It does not answer every question or, as has rightly been stated, it would be fact rather than the opinion it is - but it does a pretty good job. It also does NOT add more problems in order to solve an initial problem; for example, it accepts that whatever preceded the Big Bang is currently unknown and unknowable, rather than explaining it away with God, i.e. another unknown and unknowable, who exists but on a non-physical plane (where then? ANOTHER unknown and unknowable) ... and so on.

Well you have to admit, there are few atheists who come on here and don't mention science or a scientfic approach as some sort of proof that their opinion is correct and everybody else is wrong. It proves nothing.

"BUT - and it's a big but - the atheist position is consistent with the most current understanding of how the universe works."

It isn't consistent with anything. That is the point. The scientific facts we have say nothing about the existence or otherwise of God, nor about the knowledge we have yet to acquire. It is utterly pointless to mention God and science in the same sentence. I have no problem accepting with evolution and The Big Bang theory or any of it that science which has been proven, but what has God got to do with anything that we know to be scientific fact? Absolutely nothing. The two are completely separate questions. This is why is is so amusing that atheists seem to rely on it so heavily.

"The scientific facts we have say nothing about the existence or otherwise of God, nor about the knowledge we have yet to acquire. It is utterly pointless to mention God and science in the same sentence."

Wouldnt it be a bit odd though, if there was a deity that had created the world, everything in it, and also designed all the rules by which the world runs, and still someone could make your statement above?

"Atheists" (which by the way are not any kind of cohesive group) don't need anything to explain their position. Do you need any argument, scientific or otherwise, to explain why you have decided that there is no flying spaghetti monster ruling the world? No, you don't. Just as I don't need any argument or foundation to have the default position that I have no belief in any god. I can't see it, touch, it, taste it or rationalise it as a concept, ergo my position is a lack of belief.

Please stop insisiting that my label of atheism means something different entirely than what I have said, it is condescending, arrogant and offensive.

I suspect those with faith want to believe that athiesism is a belief system. This then allows them to argue from the "My faith is better than your faith" position. I sometimes wonder if their faith is so central to their lives that the idea of not believing in a god, of whatever stripe, is inconcievable to them. Hence the reversion to the strawman "athiesism/science is your faith" position.

The fact is, as children, we are all born athiests. We are taught religion by our parents, by our schools by our society. Anyone who manages to avoid or reject what is a fairly strong social conditioning must be a bit of a puzzle to them.

When I used to have this argument with my students they would insist I should talk to their imam who would get me to see the error of my ways as the quran could explain everything. When I pointed out that I didn't think that 1600 year old, mostly paligairised texts from what started out as an obscure Jewish cult was really going to change my mind the would stand there blankly simply failing to process my position.

"This is why is is so amusing that atheists seem to rely on it so heavily."

I wouldn't say I rely on it; but, when a system is complete to your satisfaction, it makes little sense to add something.

Because of science, I feel that I have an explanation of the universe which is as internally coherent as any I can find. So why on earth would I add a god or gods to the mix? It makes no sense to me.

It is not clear to me what function God would fulfil if He existed; whereas, if he does exist, it does raise a few tough questions which you would need to adjust science to answer. Where is He? Why can't I see Him? Exactly what sort of changes CAN he effect in the world and how does that fit in with the laws of space and time? And so forth. And I have never heard any answers to these - really quite fundamental - questions that even come close to making sense.

It is quite possible that the Earth is supported on the bakc of an invisible elephant - but what does it help me to explain if that is true and what new questions about my perception of reality does it create?

WinterOfOurDiscountTents

Are you really trying to claim that there is no flying spaghetti monster?

How do you explain the pirates then?

I'm with you ohmydays. Recently the only fundamentalists I have come across are atheists.

The Christian and Jewish people I have met recently (they are the people in my social circle) get on with their religion quietly, and I really find it is something to admire and respect.

There is no proof either way-a complete waste of time trying to find any. It is purely faith or lack of it-all very individual and no reason for DCs to follow the parent.

Quite like the sound of this Spaghetti Monster chap. Can you write a book about him winter and I'll get a group of people to buy it and learn the words...maybe make some songs up so when we meet regularly we can feel special when we sing them? We will of course need to know what he wants us to do while we have a heartbeat. Can that be central to the plot? Maybe he could have a less monstrous son called Alphabetti who can visit some time and tell us all about him?

Fab123

If you wish to extend your knowledge of the noodly one its all here

Oh no no no, I know there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm just not so in your face about it as these christian types

If only I had been the one true disciple Fab, alas, I am a mere foot soldier follower of the Almighty Noodle

RAmen!

"I sometimes wonder if their faith is so central to their lives that the idea of not believing in a god, of whatever stripe, is inconcievable to them. "

I think there is some truth in that, at least with some (many?) of those who follow a religion. The thought of life without the safety net of religious faith might seem so scary to them that they can't grasp it. Instead, they have to distort what atheism is to make it sound like Just Another Religion.

For example, it is fairly common in some areas of t'internet for the religious to claim that atheists secretly know god exists, they have merely decided to turn their back on him to make some kind of a point. The idea that an atheist simply doesn't buy into the whole god thing as a basic principle seems incomprehensible to them.

Definition of belief is an acceptance that a statement is true. Therefore saying that there is no God is a statement and it becomes a belief because you have accepted it to be true.

Spot on exoticfruit.

Hopeforthebest - You have summed it up the difference between a faith and a lack of it very well imo. It has nothing to do with proof whatsoever.

Snorbs - you are making a massive assumption on why people believe in a God which is totally untrue for a lot of people.

No, you're still wrong. The opposite of belief is a lack of belief, not a different belief. You don't need any faith for a negative, a gap.

Do you BELIEVE there is not a flying spaghetti monster? Or do you just not think about it, do you have a gap where there is no belief in such an entity?

Is this too difficult a concept for you?

I'll let the OED know they got their definition wrong then.

It makes me laugh that for a lot of people who don't believe in anything the atheist do like to come on these threads to argue their point. If they have no point what are they doing here?!