The problem, Ark, Christians do not see it as indoctrination. They are merely passing on their beliefs. To them, the bible and all they are told from the pulpit is “TRUTH” and as such is an integral part of their life. It would simply be unthinkable not to pass all of this on to their children.
In a perfect world, parents would allow their children to make their own decisions … in all parts of life. They would offer advice, counsel, pros and cons, and be open to discussion of both sides of the issue. But as we know, this is not the way the cookie crumbles.
“Amanda, I don’t think there is anyone here who would want to force anyone to convert no. Unless you could name any one such person.”
Maybe I took some comments on here out of context when people were saying that theists must be stopped. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anyone on here wants to imprison anyone or murder them or even outcast them for being a believer lol but some Christians do think that and use that an excuse to act like they are persecuted here in the US in that way or that they could be in the near future. I guess I just thought some of the comments here, at the least, can lead to a dangerous way of thinking if that makes sense. Maybe I am just too fresh out of Christianity and still a little sensitive to certain comments lol
“For one thing, Amanda, having to lay out all of their beliefs in a debate – explain them in such great detail that one in the opposite camp will understand them – often expresses the thoughts of the believer to a greater extent than he/she has ever examined them before, and CAN lead to their seeing just how ridiculous they sound to others.”
I do agree with you. This is one of the things that actually changed some of my views. I just think there is a fine line between debate and actually guilting or pressuring people or being ugly to them if that make sense. I have no problem with debates, discussion and educating people.
I have never had a problem with people believing in miracles. For one thing, if there is a God that created everything including us, than it is possible he could do anything. People believing in miracles has a kind of childlike innocence to it, like the time my very small child straight up asked me if mermaids were real and I did not have the heart to tell her no quite yet. I just said I had never seen one. Her response was, “Just because you have not seen something mommy, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.” How do you argue with that? Lol However, when these miracles start being used as an excuse for hate, murder and taking people’s rights away it loses its childlike innocence, and or course I have a problem with it at that point.
If your “nice” superstition is given respectability and is considered reasonable, it is harder to condemn the “bad” superstitions as irrational. I hope for the day when all parents will teach their children that believing that a first century dead man is the Ruler of the Cosmos is just as ridiculous as believing in leprechauns and unicorns.
We don’t need to be intolerant of the believer as a person, but let’s not give his superstitions any respectability.
I agree with you about miracle claims. Not because the claims are ridiculous, but because they are believed inconsistently. I say not ridiculous because if we accept the possibility of a creator deity then we can also accept that the deity may have the ability to alter it’s own creation at will (which Amanda just pointed out).
The problem I see is that if you believe in a miracle claim, and want to remain consistent, you must also believe in every other miraculous claim that has ever been made with the same or greater amount of evidence.
So, if you accept the resurrection of Jesus miracle based on non-eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence – you should automatically (staying logically consistent) accept every other miracle claim that is based on both eyewitness accounts and non-eyewitness accounts and with or without physical evidence. Also, since the gospels are anonymous and you cannot perform any witness profiling, you must accept the testimony of all miracle claims without much regard for the character of the witness. But that’s not how a typical Christian thinks. When they consider a claim they are only interested in how the claim will effect their doctrine and will choose to accept or reject the claim on this standard alone. This is what needs to be pointed out as contradictory thinking.
Dave for once we agree on something. If one person is going to claim belief in miracles, they have to be consistent and not only accept the miraculous claims of their religion but must be ready to accept the claims of competing religious beliefs.
And Gary I don’t think you, Ark or myself are saying we can’t respect unklee, but their beliefs demand no respect whatsoever. All believes have to be examined and if they are worthy of ridiculed to be so ridiculed that they are abandoned by those who hold them.
The problem, Ark, Christians do not see it as indoctrination.
I concur, but not all Christians actively indoctrinate, as we would generally understand the term as it applies to what someone such as Nate went through.
With me, for example it was more cultural rather than hard core theology, thus I came to atheism sooner and easier.
What we are trying to get at here is the inherent hypocrisy of Reasonable Christians condemning something like Creationism yet maintain support for Jesus and similar nonsense and are thus considered okay.
I see what you’re saying Ark. And I agree. To my way of thinking, it just boils down to what each individual wants to believe, evidence be damned.
In unkleE’s case, he likes to point out that he’s “examined the evidence” to form his beliefs. But once again, it’s a matter of pick and choose to find the “evidence” that appeals to him. When others point out facts that don’t fit his worldview, he will say the other person simply hasn’t examined all (or the wrong) evidence.
I have a theory on why there is disagreement between Christians on what it takes to be “saved” (believing vs. good deeds). I think the original message from Jesus was one of good deeds and a new kingdom on it’s way. Fairly soon, this message ran into the issue of “why should I change my life” and “why should I believe you”. This created a focus on people convincing others of why they should follow the teachings of Jesus. This could also be where the miracle stories came into play. Eventually the most important aspect of becoming “saved” was belief.
“…for unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24, ESV
In hindsight it does not make much sense to receive judgment based on what you believe about a particular event or person. Now, liberal Christians are shifting back to deeds instead of belief. After all, what would happen to foreigners who died without ever hearing the name Jesus?
There are only a few theists that I am “ugly” to, and most of them are not on this blog. And believe me, I have no illusions about converting them, just holding them at bay: “Back! Back!” – sort of like you might find yourself saying to The Walking Dead.
How would you feel about this situation: A member of your family who has two young children is teaching them that leprechauns exist; that leprechauns are present everywhere, we just can’t see them; that these invisible leprechauns have magical powers to help you in times of trouble and can heal you of illnesses; and, when you die, the invisible leprechauns will carry you to their magical land to live a life of unending happiness…IF…you sincerely and faithfully believe in them; if you do your best to do what they say; and if you say special prayers to them.
Would you tell your family member that his belief system is an acceptable worldview and that it is his right to teach his children whatever he wants to…or would you tell him that he is certifiably nuts and that what he is doing to his children is shameful, ignorant, and immoral?
If you would say the latter to your family member—that he is nuts—regarding a belief in leprechauns, then why do YOU teach YOUR children that a first century zombie is their Lord and Savior and that they should pray to this invisible zombie whenever they are afraid, sick, or thankful?
Has anyone seen Portal, the cool Christian from Australia, for a while? He was very active on the blog Kathy began, but I haven’t seen him post in months. Nice kid.
Thanks for your kind words about me. Nate, I totally agree with your paragraph which ended with: ” I see no reason why a man with those qualities shouldn’t be my friend.” and I feel the same about you.
Hi Gary, Arch, Ark, Nan, Makagutu et al,
It is kind of surreal to be spoken about so much as has occurred on this blog recently. I haven’t read most of the comments (life’s too short!) and I don’t usually reply to such personal comments, but in the hope of continuing the understanding Nate and Dave advocate rather than antipathy, I thought it might help if I responded now.
I enter discussions of religion on the internet for several reasons – principally to try represent what I believe is the truth, and to get to know other people and learn what they think. (I have met many wonderful people of all different views, on every continent – except Antarctica!) But I find that most discussion of religion is based on “facts” which are not agreed upon by both sides, so I end up spending a lot of time talking about facts and scholarship. If we can’t agree on the basic facts, especially if another person refuses to accept mainstream scholarship, I usually withdraw rather than keep arguing ad infinitum.
There are lots of other reasons people might discuss on the internet – e.g. to support each other in their shared opinions, to mock people who think differently, to express anger or otherwise vent, or to argue for the sake of argument – but I am not much interested in those reasons. Other people, including people here, are free to do that within whatever limits Nate sets, but I generally won’t choose to engage.
I’m sorry that people think I have bad motives and am condescending, though I recognise it comes with the territory when a christian ventures onto an atheist blog – so I take it as a reverse sort of compliment. 🙂 If there are particular things I have said that offend you, please mention them and I am happy to either explain or apologise.
But I feel most of the comments are unjustified. I mostly seem to get up people’s noses when I quote scholars and argue we should follow the consensus of scholarship. This is strange in people who themselves claim to be evidence-based, who sometimes make very definite statements themselves without adequate objective evidence, who more strongly criticise christians for the same things I criticise them for, and who make far more ugly personal statements than I ever do, generally without anyone objecting. I’m not complaining, just pointing things out.
But I don’t take offence easily, and I’m quite happy to put all that behind me. For those who complain I don’t answer questions, I’m quite happy to answer any question as part of a reasonable discussion – but as I said before, I’m not going to waste my time or yours doing the research to find the facts and then explaining my conclusions from the facts, if those genuine comments are met with mockery, misunderstanding or misrepresentation, or if the other person isn’t really interested in unbiased facts. Why would I bother?
I recognise that there will always be disagreements about where the best facts come from, and I am willing to discuss that too. I avoid quoting biased christian sources in favour of neutral and expert sources, and I expect non-believers to do the same – we can choose our opinions but we shouldn’t choose our own facts – something I think you guys say to christians often enough but don’t always apply to yourselves. If I have offended anyone there, then I’m sorry, but this matter needs to be raised.
I don’t know why any of you would particularly want to discuss with me, but if you actually do, let’s agree on some ground rules – basically what Dave and Nate have said. I’m quite willing to discuss anything, but I will challenge poorly-based fact claims and I will withdraw again if the discussion gets unhelpfully personal or ugly.
I’m easy either way. I can continue as I have, ignoring and generally not even reading many of the comments for the reasons I’ve given, and just discussing with Nate and Dave and others who want a friendly and courteous discussion. Or I can discuss with anyone else who wants to do it like normal friendly human beings. It’s really up to you.
Thanks Nate for maintaining this discussion forum, thanks for everyone who has read this far. Over to you.
I have a bumper sticker that my Christian daughter never takes a close look at – it reads, “I Believe In Good,” but in a Christian redneck state, you get so used to seeing, “I Believe In God,” that the casual observer merely takes for granted that that’s what it says.
Let’s show how reasonable atheists and agnostics can be and concede the following two claims to Christians:
1. The “majority of scholars” believe that the tomb (of Jesus) was empty.
2. The “majority of scholars” believe that very quickly after Jesus’ death, his disciples came to believe that they had “seen” Jesus in some sense.
If we concede these two claims as not only attested to by the “majority of scholars”, but, go one step further, and concede that these two claims are indisputable historical facts, is it reasonable and rational to conclude that the explanation for these two indisputable historical facts is that the three day old, bloated, decomposing body of a first century Jewish prophet was reanimated by an ancient Hebrew god, walked out of his grave, ate a broiled fish lunch with his fishing buddies, levitated/teleported into outer space from the top of a nearby mountain, and is at this very moment, gazing down at us from his throne on the outer limits of the universe as the Almighty, All-Knowing, All-Powerful King of the Cosmos?
No.
It is not reasonable. It is not rational. It is nonsense.
I’m quite happy to answer any question as part of a reasonable discussion –
Excellent!
Then please address the issue of the Pentateuch and in particular, the Exodus and the character of Moses, for which the overwhelming scholarly and scientific consensus accepts as historical fiction.
Without Moses there is no Sinai covenant and a this encompass.
Without the Pentateuch there is no Fall, no sin, and thus, no need for a savior.
1.How do you justify preaching ”sin”, and what you regard as truth, however tacitly, and the need for ”salvation” through belief in the character, Jesus of Nazareth when the Pentateuch is fiction?
2.How do you explain the character, Jesus of Nazareth whom you claim is the creator of the universe ,acknowledging the character Moses and Mosaic law and appearing with Moses in the transfiguration?
Finding Truth 
The problem, Ark, Christians do not see it as indoctrination. They are merely passing on their beliefs. To them, the bible and all they are told from the pulpit is “TRUTH” and as such is an integral part of their life. It would simply be unthinkable not to pass all of this on to their children.
In a perfect world, parents would allow their children to make their own decisions … in all parts of life. They would offer advice, counsel, pros and cons, and be open to discussion of both sides of the issue. But as we know, this is not the way the cookie crumbles.
Sad, but true.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“Amanda, I don’t think there is anyone here who would want to force anyone to convert no. Unless you could name any one such person.”
Maybe I took some comments on here out of context when people were saying that theists must be stopped. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anyone on here wants to imprison anyone or murder them or even outcast them for being a believer lol but some Christians do think that and use that an excuse to act like they are persecuted here in the US in that way or that they could be in the near future. I guess I just thought some of the comments here, at the least, can lead to a dangerous way of thinking if that makes sense. Maybe I am just too fresh out of Christianity and still a little sensitive to certain comments lol
LikeLike
“For one thing, Amanda, having to lay out all of their beliefs in a debate – explain them in such great detail that one in the opposite camp will understand them – often expresses the thoughts of the believer to a greater extent than he/she has ever examined them before, and CAN lead to their seeing just how ridiculous they sound to others.”
I do agree with you. This is one of the things that actually changed some of my views. I just think there is a fine line between debate and actually guilting or pressuring people or being ugly to them if that make sense. I have no problem with debates, discussion and educating people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have never had a problem with people believing in miracles. For one thing, if there is a God that created everything including us, than it is possible he could do anything. People believing in miracles has a kind of childlike innocence to it, like the time my very small child straight up asked me if mermaids were real and I did not have the heart to tell her no quite yet. I just said I had never seen one. Her response was, “Just because you have not seen something mommy, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.” How do you argue with that? Lol However, when these miracles start being used as an excuse for hate, murder and taking people’s rights away it loses its childlike innocence, and or course I have a problem with it at that point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If your “nice” superstition is given respectability and is considered reasonable, it is harder to condemn the “bad” superstitions as irrational. I hope for the day when all parents will teach their children that believing that a first century dead man is the Ruler of the Cosmos is just as ridiculous as believing in leprechauns and unicorns.
We don’t need to be intolerant of the believer as a person, but let’s not give his superstitions any respectability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary,
I agree with you about miracle claims. Not because the claims are ridiculous, but because they are believed inconsistently. I say not ridiculous because if we accept the possibility of a creator deity then we can also accept that the deity may have the ability to alter it’s own creation at will (which Amanda just pointed out).
The problem I see is that if you believe in a miracle claim, and want to remain consistent, you must also believe in every other miraculous claim that has ever been made with the same or greater amount of evidence.
So, if you accept the resurrection of Jesus miracle based on non-eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence – you should automatically (staying logically consistent) accept every other miracle claim that is based on both eyewitness accounts and non-eyewitness accounts and with or without physical evidence. Also, since the gospels are anonymous and you cannot perform any witness profiling, you must accept the testimony of all miracle claims without much regard for the character of the witness. But that’s not how a typical Christian thinks. When they consider a claim they are only interested in how the claim will effect their doctrine and will choose to accept or reject the claim on this standard alone. This is what needs to be pointed out as contradictory thinking.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave for once we agree on something. If one person is going to claim belief in miracles, they have to be consistent and not only accept the miraculous claims of their religion but must be ready to accept the claims of competing religious beliefs.
And Gary I don’t think you, Ark or myself are saying we can’t respect unklee, but their beliefs demand no respect whatsoever. All believes have to be examined and if they are worthy of ridiculed to be so ridiculed that they are abandoned by those who hold them.
LikeLike
@Nan
I concur, but not all Christians actively indoctrinate, as we would generally understand the term as it applies to what someone such as Nate went through.
With me, for example it was more cultural rather than hard core theology, thus I came to atheism sooner and easier.
What we are trying to get at here is the inherent hypocrisy of Reasonable Christians condemning something like Creationism yet maintain support for Jesus and similar nonsense and are thus considered okay.
They are not.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying Ark. And I agree. To my way of thinking, it just boils down to what each individual wants to believe, evidence be damned.
In unkleE’s case, he likes to point out that he’s “examined the evidence” to form his beliefs. But once again, it’s a matter of pick and choose to find the “evidence” that appeals to him. When others point out facts that don’t fit his worldview, he will say the other person simply hasn’t examined all (or the wrong) evidence.
And around and around we go.
LikeLike
I have a theory on why there is disagreement between Christians on what it takes to be “saved” (believing vs. good deeds). I think the original message from Jesus was one of good deeds and a new kingdom on it’s way. Fairly soon, this message ran into the issue of “why should I change my life” and “why should I believe you”. This created a focus on people convincing others of why they should follow the teachings of Jesus. This could also be where the miracle stories came into play. Eventually the most important aspect of becoming “saved” was belief.
In hindsight it does not make much sense to receive judgment based on what you believe about a particular event or person. Now, liberal Christians are shifting back to deeds instead of belief. After all, what would happen to foreigners who died without ever hearing the name Jesus?
LikeLike
There are only a few theists that I am “ugly” to, and most of them are not on this blog. And believe me, I have no illusions about converting them, just holding them at bay: “Back! Back!” – sort of like you might find yourself saying to The Walking Dead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Atheist and Agnostic friends:
How would you feel about this situation: A member of your family who has two young children is teaching them that leprechauns exist; that leprechauns are present everywhere, we just can’t see them; that these invisible leprechauns have magical powers to help you in times of trouble and can heal you of illnesses; and, when you die, the invisible leprechauns will carry you to their magical land to live a life of unending happiness…IF…you sincerely and faithfully believe in them; if you do your best to do what they say; and if you say special prayers to them.
Would you tell your family member that his belief system is an acceptable worldview and that it is his right to teach his children whatever he wants to…or would you tell him that he is certifiably nuts and that what he is doing to his children is shameful, ignorant, and immoral?
LikeLike
Dear Christian:
If you would say the latter to your family member—that he is nuts—regarding a belief in leprechauns, then why do YOU teach YOUR children that a first century zombie is their Lord and Savior and that they should pray to this invisible zombie whenever they are afraid, sick, or thankful?
LikeLike
Has anyone seen Portal, the cool Christian from Australia, for a while? He was very active on the blog Kathy began, but I haven’t seen him post in months. Nice kid.
LikeLike
While we are on the subject….what happened to Kathy?
LikeLike
With any luck, she’s been raptured.
LikeLike
If that is true, may I have her car?
LikeLike
G’day Nate & Dave,
Thanks for your kind words about me. Nate, I totally agree with your paragraph which ended with: ” I see no reason why a man with those qualities shouldn’t be my friend.” and I feel the same about you.
Hi Gary, Arch, Ark, Nan, Makagutu et al,
It is kind of surreal to be spoken about so much as has occurred on this blog recently. I haven’t read most of the comments (life’s too short!) and I don’t usually reply to such personal comments, but in the hope of continuing the understanding Nate and Dave advocate rather than antipathy, I thought it might help if I responded now.
I enter discussions of religion on the internet for several reasons – principally to try represent what I believe is the truth, and to get to know other people and learn what they think. (I have met many wonderful people of all different views, on every continent – except Antarctica!) But I find that most discussion of religion is based on “facts” which are not agreed upon by both sides, so I end up spending a lot of time talking about facts and scholarship. If we can’t agree on the basic facts, especially if another person refuses to accept mainstream scholarship, I usually withdraw rather than keep arguing ad infinitum.
There are lots of other reasons people might discuss on the internet – e.g. to support each other in their shared opinions, to mock people who think differently, to express anger or otherwise vent, or to argue for the sake of argument – but I am not much interested in those reasons. Other people, including people here, are free to do that within whatever limits Nate sets, but I generally won’t choose to engage.
I’m sorry that people think I have bad motives and am condescending, though I recognise it comes with the territory when a christian ventures onto an atheist blog – so I take it as a reverse sort of compliment. 🙂 If there are particular things I have said that offend you, please mention them and I am happy to either explain or apologise.
But I feel most of the comments are unjustified. I mostly seem to get up people’s noses when I quote scholars and argue we should follow the consensus of scholarship. This is strange in people who themselves claim to be evidence-based, who sometimes make very definite statements themselves without adequate objective evidence, who more strongly criticise christians for the same things I criticise them for, and who make far more ugly personal statements than I ever do, generally without anyone objecting. I’m not complaining, just pointing things out.
But I don’t take offence easily, and I’m quite happy to put all that behind me. For those who complain I don’t answer questions, I’m quite happy to answer any question as part of a reasonable discussion – but as I said before, I’m not going to waste my time or yours doing the research to find the facts and then explaining my conclusions from the facts, if those genuine comments are met with mockery, misunderstanding or misrepresentation, or if the other person isn’t really interested in unbiased facts. Why would I bother?
I recognise that there will always be disagreements about where the best facts come from, and I am willing to discuss that too. I avoid quoting biased christian sources in favour of neutral and expert sources, and I expect non-believers to do the same – we can choose our opinions but we shouldn’t choose our own facts – something I think you guys say to christians often enough but don’t always apply to yourselves. If I have offended anyone there, then I’m sorry, but this matter needs to be raised.
I don’t know why any of you would particularly want to discuss with me, but if you actually do, let’s agree on some ground rules – basically what Dave and Nate have said. I’m quite willing to discuss anything, but I will challenge poorly-based fact claims and I will withdraw again if the discussion gets unhelpfully personal or ugly.
I’m easy either way. I can continue as I have, ignoring and generally not even reading many of the comments for the reasons I’ve given, and just discussing with Nate and Dave and others who want a friendly and courteous discussion. Or I can discuss with anyone else who wants to do it like normal friendly human beings. It’s really up to you.
Thanks Nate for maintaining this discussion forum, thanks for everyone who has read this far. Over to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has a fish bumper-sticker – are you sure you want it?
LikeLike
I’ll draw some legs on the fish.
LikeLike
That should do it.
I have a bumper sticker that my Christian daughter never takes a close look at – it reads, “I Believe In Good,” but in a Christian redneck state, you get so used to seeing, “I Believe In God,” that the casual observer merely takes for granted that that’s what it says.
LikeLike
Let’s show how reasonable atheists and agnostics can be and concede the following two claims to Christians:
1. The “majority of scholars” believe that the tomb (of Jesus) was empty.
2. The “majority of scholars” believe that very quickly after Jesus’ death, his disciples came to believe that they had “seen” Jesus in some sense.
If we concede these two claims as not only attested to by the “majority of scholars”, but, go one step further, and concede that these two claims are indisputable historical facts, is it reasonable and rational to conclude that the explanation for these two indisputable historical facts is that the three day old, bloated, decomposing body of a first century Jewish prophet was reanimated by an ancient Hebrew god, walked out of his grave, ate a broiled fish lunch with his fishing buddies, levitated/teleported into outer space from the top of a nearby mountain, and is at this very moment, gazing down at us from his throne on the outer limits of the universe as the Almighty, All-Knowing, All-Powerful King of the Cosmos?
No.
It is not reasonable. It is not rational. It is nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary, you are a person after my own heart.
It is unreasonable. It is nonsense. It is madness to expect us to take it seriously
LikeLike
@ unklee
Excellent!
Then please address the issue of the Pentateuch and in particular, the Exodus and the character of Moses, for which the overwhelming scholarly and scientific consensus accepts as historical fiction.
Without Moses there is no Sinai covenant and a this encompass.
Without the Pentateuch there is no Fall, no sin, and thus, no need for a savior.
1.How do you justify preaching ”sin”, and what you regard as truth, however tacitly, and the need for ”salvation” through belief in the character, Jesus of Nazareth when the Pentateuch is fiction?
2.How do you explain the character, Jesus of Nazareth whom you claim is the creator of the universe ,acknowledging the character Moses and Mosaic law and appearing with Moses in the transfiguration?
LikeLike
Sorry; typo.
and all this encompasses.
LikeLike