How do you resolve conflicting religious parenting

[Contemplates]

My husband doesn't want our children to be allowed access to both of our (differing) religious views, only his.

He is atheistic and I wanted to introduce our preschooler to Sunday school if he wanted to try it.

He loves preschool and wanted to see what this was all about too, and I had always been open about the fact I intended to encourage exploring God as an alternative to atheism, without forcing anything.

Obviously his Dad's alternative viewpoint is also and equally well known in our household. However I don't silence my husband the way I feel he is trying to silence me and I'm trying to remain balanced and fair.

This morning he was saying how he didn't want our son to attend Sunday school as he doesn't like it; which led to our son saying he didn't want to go anymore. So this morning we went to the park instead

Has anyone experienced this parental conflict before and how did you deal with it? There must be some balanced compromise that we can reach, while still enabling our children freedom to make their own choices.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

Quite

how scientific method might be good for finding out about something outside the universe?

If god is totally outside the universe and has no effect on it that might follow.
If he has any effect at all on events in the universe then he is detectable by the results. Just as a footprint implies the existence of a foot.

This applies to all ghosts too and anything that goes bump in the night. If you hear it then it vibrated air in a way you recognise as sound.

when atheists talk about their wonder at the amazingness of the universe they are really reiterating pantheistic ideas.

Well no. They just sound like that if you evaluate all new experiences in religious terms.

And by definition 10a all god's creatures contain within them some petroleum or at least volatile liquids obtained by distillation.

HullyGully The dragon in the garage (as a concept) does not worry me.

For a person which believed in the dragon, it could exist, in spirit. Which could affect their actions, perceptions and ultimately if a pattern of thought existed long enough brain physiology, if the belief was strong enough.

However it is not necessarily a constructive belief, it could actually be dysfunctional, so not one personally that I would wish to entertain. I am not afraid of dragons, they're not really something I spend a lot of time thinking about.

Cote* Ideas can be described as alive, as in' keeping an idea alive'. Ideas are dynamic, can be described as organic, ideas are described as existing, ie 'the idea of exists among..'

Language is described as 'living'. As it is dynamic and changing in usage and meaning over time.

Cote Now why do you think you have the authority to say my use of the English language is incorrect? It is not merely 'quirks', it even fits with dictionary definitions.

Added to this analogy, symbolism, imagery and metaphor are features of the English language and affect it's etymology.

Back Definition 10a of spirit refers to the practice of distillation. In Alchemy there was a belief that it was possible to capture spirit in distillates, hence spirits (the distillates obtained through Alchemic practices, thought to have captured the spirit.)

For a person which believed in the dragon, it could exist, in spirit

That is completely meaningless. You mean it could exist in fantasy, as a delusion, and that could affect...

Hullygully Call it what you will. The thing is spirits are not physical entities so do not physically exist, in the classic sense.

However delusions are usually described in terms of dysfunction. Hence I would not term religious beliefs as delusional, unless they could be proven to be dysfunctional.

I find Foucault's comment in insanity very insightful. He commented that madness has never had a definition which relates to 'absolute truth'. Instead by acquiring the power to define it, people have been able to use diagnosis of madness to gain control over people.

that should read 'comment on^ insanity'.

Thus, I do not like using terms such as 'delusional' lightly. When present and diagnosed clinically, having delusions can be a part of very frightening condition for people.

Capsium, yes I know. i was pointing out the dangers of thinking a dictionary was an encyclopaedia.

:)

I accidentally cut my foot off so I went to the foot of the stairs and used that foot as a replacement. I had a lie down but because it was a lie I wasn't comfortable enough to rest. So I went out and got on a train. However the bride pushed me off because I was leaving footprints on it. I went to cross the road, but the zebra crossing had already crossed and gone about its business.

This is in the spirit of the discussion I think

Back The difference is that there is a disconnect, in usage, in that it changes between your sentences and even within your sentences.

With the distillates, Alchemists actually believed they contained the spirit, as in essence of the matter, they had distilled. So this is partly consistent, from the modern viewpoint, with the primary definition, and completely consistent with the primary definition from an Alchemists viewpoint.

I still don't think male circumcision is so terrible. But I'm digressing. As you were ladies.

Call it what you will. The thing is spirits are not physical entities so do not physically exist, in the classic sense.

As opposed to what other sense?

Hully as opposed to existing in the spiritual realm. Which can in turn affect matter, manifest physically, so to speak. Spirits could be described as acting like an agent which affects physical matter.

This can be likened to the way people speak of the existence of ideas. So spirit exists in a similar way to ideas. Except I think spirit can be more, it encompasses emotions and cultural ideals.

^ and of course life essence or essence of being.

Hully do you never use the word 'spirit'?

Spirit can manifest physically

Can you give me an indisputable example of this?

And I don't mean compare it to writing a thought down in a book. That is a false analogy.

No. Apart from "That's the spirit" meaning well done! Not even that as it is now a little archaic.

Alchemists actually believed yes but they were wrong. The language still contains related words, but they have no such meaning now. That's what I mean about not using a dictionary as an encyclopaedia.

Hully not indisputable because it is theoretical. It does not exist physically so cannot be proved but I will do my best to give an example.

The Bible advises not to worry. The idea is God loves you and you can have Faith in Him and trust Him. Anything against God is described as evil.

So a bad spirit of worry, communicated in various ways over the mass media, could affect someone so they worried.

If they did not resist this worry, it could overcome them until this became a dysfunctional pattern of thought. If this went on long enough, it could escalate and cause further physical symptoms, such as in panic attacks, insomnia and high blood pressure. This could then be clinically diagnosed.

Hully not archaic to me. Back they have meaning to me.

I must admit I do like reading some pretty old stuff though..knowing these meanings is helpful in understanding and interpreting the message in older texts, so that they come 'alive'. To me they seem very fresh and relevant.

How do you explain the inconsistent triad?

If god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, how do you explain pain?

Great question Hully.

I agree there's a problem there.

I might put that question to some clerics I know and see what their response is!

BTW I saw a great animation the other night explaining humanism and now I feel that I'm a Quaker humanist. I like that description because to me it's all positive, whereas if I say I'm a non-theist that's just a slightly more negative descriptor I feel (because of the "non" bit)