Final phase of atheist bus campaign

[RockinSockBunnies]

So, I've just read this latest installment about the atheist bus campaign here.

Now, I'm a Christian, we go to church, DD is baptised, so obviously I'm not going to be impartial. But there point of the poster campaign seems somewhat flawed. How are children going to grow up and suddenly decide which (if any) religion they adhere to, if they've had no real exposure to any of the various religions during their upbringing?

Unless you have parents who are willing to learn the fundamental points of each and every faith, take the children to the places of worship of these faiths, whilst also discussing the concepts of atheism, then how on earth is a child going to be able to decide for themselves what they believe in once they're older?

I was an atheist for around fifteen years, but when I went back to Christianity I had the basic knowledge and understanding of the faith from attending church and Sunday School as a child. How can anyone make a real decision about religion if they're denied the opportunity to learn as a child?

edam, its thinly veiled, because its pretending to treat all beliefs equally, when in fact, it is pushing for children to be brought up as agnostic.

kaloki, you are replying to a point that I didnt make...I am not worried about indoctrinating my children by accident. I am bringing them up with a set of rules on purpose. I fully expect, that when they are older they will make up their own minds. Who these people are who are labelling my children as "xxx religion children" and thus preventing them from making up their own minds, I really don't know.

Dawkins makes the point that he'd be a crap scientist if he took the position "I refuse to believe in the existence of God(s) even if his/their existence was proven to me".

That would be just as dogmatic (and indefensible) a position as someone saying "I don't care if you prove to me that God doesn't exist, I'm still going to believe in Him".

But that doesn't make Dawkins an agnostic. He doesn't believe in the existence of God which is atheism at its core. All he's saying is that if someone came up with good, solid evidence that God does exist - evidence that Dawkins does not believe will ever be produced - then he'd admit he was wrong.

"Who these people are who are labelling my children as "xxx religion children" and thus preventing them from making up their own minds, I really don't know."

Sadly they do exist. Thankfully they aren't the majority.

Kaloki, presumably a lot of people who send their children to religious schools would regard their DCs as children of a particular religion.

But would they refuse to let them consider anything else?

I'd love to know how you STOP your children making up their own minds

I could re-populate the church of england...

Both the Qu'ran and the Torah regard apostasy as a crime worthy of the death penalty. As has the Christian church at times. That sounds (to me, at least) like refusal to allow them to consider anything else.

Have you read his book "The God Delusion"? It explains his stance pretty well.

there is evidence disproving the existence of of an omnipotent omniscient benevolent being, as anyone withtheir eyes open in this less than perfect world will see.

peter vardy, incidentally concludes his bok with the notion that although there really isn't any proof for he belief in God, he's going to believe anyway - his argument being that peopl ebelieve dafter things (pretty much)

I don't find Dawkins dogmatic at all - what does he believe that is not demonstrably true?

"All liberals think that everyone has a relationship with God"

That's utter, indefensible rubbish. I'm a liberal. I don't believe in "god". It's impossible to have a "relationship" with something you don't believe in, and the height of arrogance to presume that your own religion/superstition should apply to everyone else.

lol UQD

I was talking about liberal anglicans, like Williams, in contrast to conservative anglicans

Yes, I know.
I was being perverse with language to make a point... But it's still a bit silly, isn't it? To think that because it's yours, and it makes sense to you, everyone must believe in it?

EdgarAllenPoo's way of asking the Dawkins question is a very good one. It's not often asked that way round.

EdgarAllenPoo I see no clear correlation between human suffering and the absence of a deity

suffering pre-dates humanity (hence demolishing the free-will defence). Is the god that allows this omipotent and benevolent? Such a being can't exist. fairly straight forwards as far as i can see.

i really don't think logical arguments have any affect on the believer, you can't argue someone out of faith, it is not rational....any more than you can tell the hallucinator the tiger isn't behind them, or the paranoid that no-one is out to get them.

The bible is in parts, a right rattling read. so i don't feel any need to discount it in its entirety, though no need to revere it either.

Dawkins, well..is merely repeating the work of e.g. Bertie Russell 'Why I am Not a Christian' and many before him. Reasonably readworthy though.

I don't find Dawkins dogmatic but I do find him strident. I can see why people think he's dogmatic, if they haven't read any of his stuff/listened much to him.

I wonder if he'll slide into retirement now he's no longer Prof for the Public Understanding of Science (most of his work has been imo done as an antidote to the intelligent design bilge of the past decade or so).

EdgarAllenPoo - The three main attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent) are indeed not compatible. He can have two but not all three.

Still, that only disproves what most people think of as God (his attributes), and not whether or not the known universe was consciously created by a superior intelligence.

I might know what those ads mean re "let me decide for myself". DD is 4 years old and has not yet heard the word "God" (I don't think). I am hoping that by the time she realizes that a lot of people believe in something called God and have rituals & stories that go with it, she will be able to question it all.

I am a Christian and dh an atheist/agnostic, so I have always had to aim for impartiality in anything I tell them about religions ("I believe this, Daddy believes this, lots of people believe this). I have rarely taken them to church and fully accepted that the choice is theirs.

Not a problem.

But if I had let them get to the age of 6 without even letting them know that there is such a thing as religion and that it does influence people's way of thinking (not just historically but here and now), then I would have to treat religion as something totally different from any other aspect of life: we have always been very open about everything. The idea of suddenly having to tell lies about where I go on a Sunday morning would seem a bit odd, when I've never told lies about anything else.

I want my children to know lots and question lots. It seems that those of you who want to hide the fact that other people have faiths, do not wish your children to question your own beliefs. I don't want a situation where my children don't question mine.

i think what kids need to know about religion could be contained in RS lessons focussed on the top 6 religions.

The primacy of christianity shown in primary schools (morning prayer, hymn-singing, bible story learning and occasional church attendance) is not necessary to this.

Though for arguments sake, few children study politics beneath the age of 16 in school, fewer still philosophy & psychology - partly because the subject matter warrants a higher level of understanding and long attention span. Yet also partly because the government doesn't feel everyone needs a deeper understanding of them (and to be fair in areas where kids are struggling to get Cs in English, a worthwhile study in any subject where words under three sylablles length are in the minority is going to be difficult to attain) they aren't included in the mandatory educational stage.

I think Dawkins can come across as strident, but that this is because of all the crap he has to put up with in the name of "argument", to be honest. He's had about 30 years of this and it would try the patience of a saint.

he's not the only one - though the academic community in this country accept atheism/agnosticism as a philosophical norm,in the US eve agnostics can get a hard time - to the point of losing their jobs.

'the faith that refuses to ask questions confirms its own unbelief'

lol at 'try the patience of a saint'

IME academic communities in the US, many of them, are wonderful oases of liberal atheist calm, compared to the cities and states around them though I admit my experience is limited.