I think he’s justified in his use of the term “supernatural”. Whether we believe in what he’s talking about or not, that is the right term for what he’s talking about.
I dunno. “Imaginary” seems like a pretty accurate way to describe something that isn’t natural, i.e. something that does not occur in nature.
Once again, that was exactly what I was trying to articulate when I meant “gradual transition.” I would feel no more comfortable having a kid who was “suckered” or “pressured” into embracing anything either. I would prefer that they into it after careful deliberation.
Just in case you still haven’t been able to find your way to a dictionary, “imaginary” refers specifically to something that does not exist, not something that is not natural.
You are free to call it hypothetical, theoretical, or whatever else pleases you. You are also free to deny the existence of anything supernatural, but that is up to you.
Can you explain the difference?
But it ‘exists’ in the mind of the person who does the imagining, no?
I would say the word is quite apt. As there is no direct perception of God, it is ALL about what people imagine him to be and why there are so many different images of God. Everybody imagines him differently.
I’d kinda like to see him do that, myself.
Anyway, he asked for an alternative to “supernatural”, I gave one, and he implied I didn’t know how to use a dictionary. What’s the point of asking for an honest opinion if your intent is to insult the respondant? I vaguely suspect the OP was working along similar lines, but since he abandoned the thread after only posting to it twice, evidence is lacking. Thus my suspicion is supernatural, or possibly only imaginary.
If you believe in God, and also believe that God isn’t a physical entity, then you believe both that God exists outside your own mind and that he is not “natural” in the sense of a physical being that exists in this universe–that he’s supernatural. “Imaginary” refers to something that you believe exists only in your mind. To a hard atheist, there is no distinction, but to a deist/theist/agnostic/etc. there is. Using semantics like this to argue that God doesn’t exist is a fairly circular excercise.
I’m looking for relevance. If a kid is showing asshole tendancies then your choices are limited to asshole believer and asshole non-believer, yes? Being a believer won’t change an asshole into a laid-back, non-judgemental person. Being an atheist won’t change a laid-back, non-judgemental person into an asshole. Or are you asserting that it will?
If I’ve got a kid who is turning out to be an asshole then it doesn’t matter one whit to me weather they’re a religious asshole or a non-religious asshole. It is my contention that assholery or non-assholery is independent of the religious variable. We have certainly seen religious assholes enough to prove the two are not mutually exclusive. We have also certainly seen enough atheist assholes to prove they are also not mutually exclusive.
Enjoy,
Steven
Interesting. I guess I’d try to talk to my kids about what they choose to do, but honestly, if they’re wanting to do something I disagree with, I’m not sure whether I could or would hide my disagreement from them. To that extent, I’d be challenging them on things I disagreed with, but just talking with them about things I agreed with.
That wouldn’t mean they couldn’t do things like joining the army, say; but I woudln’t see it as my duty to hide my views from them.
Maybe I’m just not getting what you’re saying.
Daniel
Not at all. That had nothing to do with my question. I am surprised that you had to ask that. I had hoped it was obvious that it had nothing to do with my point.
Naturally. I am in complete agreement.
Of course. I mentioned earlier that I’d rather have a non-asshole atheist kid than an asshole Christian kid, so obviously I’m aware that assholes come in both brands.
I was asking about whether or not the religious belief (and all that goes along with it, you know, “mental illness,” “lack of critical thought,” all that jazz) was better than the kid not being an asshole. I mean, the asshole atheist kid is not presumably, mentally ill and is, presumably, a “critical thinker,” and that’s a good thing, right? And maybe the kid will grow out of being an asshole. But the so-called “non-critical thinker” “mentally ill” religious kid (who is not an asshole), is, well, mentally ill and all that. I just was wondering which one of these qualities was less preferable to y’all. And I’ve gotten your answers, so all is cool. 
I had made it clear earlier that I don’t think that atheists are “mentally ill” or “immoral” or anything like that. So if I had an atheist kid, I would feel disappointed that they were, because that’s not how I’d raised them. Just like if they liked Britney Spears and didn’t like Classical music, I’d be disappointed. Because it’s human nature for all parents to feel that way—to feel that disappointment.
Since I don’t believe that an atheist kid of mine (hypothetically—don’t have any kids, atheist or otherwise) would be “mentally ill” or “lack critical thought” or be “immoral” or anything like that, it’s easier for me to say that what would be most important is that they be someone that treats others well, is not strident and not a jerk. But since some of you brought up “mentally ill,” “lacking critical thought” and have basically been questioning the rationality and intelligence of a theist, I figured the dynamics were dramatically different for you. I mean, many of you made it sound like having a theist kid would be a pretty bad thing—“mentally ill” and all that, you know. That’s why I asked the question.
As a father of four(soon to be five) little ones I can see my influence in them daily. My overarching goal in raising them is to instill a sense of independence of thought and deed. A child adopting goals that I personally hold could be doing so out of their own sincere desire to achieve those goals, or they could simply be parroting me. The former I have no problem with, the latter shows a lack of independent thought and I would question them to ensure they had thought the decision through. Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but there will come a day when daddy isn’t there to set an example and I want to be sure they can find their path on their own.
Ok, that makes it clear to me. Thanks for sticking it out.
Enjoy,
Steven
Another atheist checking in.
I certainly wouldn’t be mad, but I’d probably be both wary (more on that in a sec) and (possibly) disappointed.
I had a religious upbringing (standard Catholic, church-going, Sunday school, etc) but it just didn’t take.
Very early on I perceived that the world the church described didn’t seem to jibe very well with the world I saw. Not long after I figured out that Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and the Boogeyman, were just fables, the whole Jesus and miracles thing lost a lot of its force. I really questioned everything and wasn’t impressed with the answers.
So, at 13 or so, I had a lenthy theological and existential discussion with my mom who immediately accepted my view with a smile and said, okay, if that’s what you believe.
So, that’s probably how I’d handle my kid signing on to a religion.
But I’d wary of my kid’s religious conversion…
Here’s why: When I was a teenager, a close friend (and former girlfriend) who had been previously non-religious Got God. Bigtime.
Over the next year, she abandonned practically every interest and hobby she had and focused her entire being on religion, specifically born-again Christianity. All friendships with non-religious peers dissolved because she would never discuss anything but Christ and/or how everyone should accept Him as their savior.
She’s a missionary now, but no one ever sees her. We all miss the old her.
Although I would guess her conversion was unusually was over-the-top, it would certainly be on my mind when my kid announced a similar epiphany.
As for disappointed, I would be if my kid went into a conversion blindly accepting dogma. I questioned and probed religious dogma and found the answers I got lacking in the extreme.
But I wouldn’t be disappointed if my kid found those answers reasonable and comforting – I’d be disappoined if the questions were never asked.
Well, maybe I’m taking things the wrong way, but your referral to his beliefs as “imaginary” was perhaps a bit flippant. Maybe that wasn’t your intent, but that is possibly how some interpretted your post.
Possibly.
I look at it this way: Bryan set out with the purpose to debase my beliefs by calling them imaginary. Being an (apparently) fully aware and developed person, Bryan surely must know that calling someone dellusional may provoke a negative response. By using the timeless art of playing hurt, he implies that I wronged him (and his obviously superior rational self), despite the fact that I am technically correct in my point that he did misuse a word. I take this as a signal from Mr. Ekers that his ire is spent and his gun unloaded, for surely his compelling arguments must amount to something more than, “he called my bluff and I want to pout about it.”
To be fair, (most of) the acidic comments made early in the thread were drive by snipings, their posters (rather sadly) not bothering to show thier faces again, but sitting near the fireplace with a cup of coco and smug satisfaction that they stuck it to them theists. However, many others have been notably calmer and far more rational in their discussion, not resorting to blatant name calling and abject rejection of personal philosophies more than a degree away from their own. It gives me faith that there are people who are, indeed, capable of seeing beyond their own point of view and listening to others, even if they do not agree. Thank you for that.
I haven’t read every post in this thread and I’m sure people have basically said what I’m about to, though probably better, but it would not bother me too much.
First let me say I have no kids and do not want any, but if I did I would allow them to choose their own path. I know it bothers my mother that I don’t go to church, but fortunately she doesn’t pester me about it. Occasionally she will mention something about me going with her to service, but I feel no pressure.
Now if my imaginary kids decided to join a religion, I would hope they were doing it for the right reasons. When I was younger and unsure of myself and beliefs, I tried out a number of churches, but never really fit in because I could not make myself believe in a supreme diety. Sometimes I wish I could because in our society “church” is one of the few things left that actually maintains a sense of community.
I would encourage my kids to read various books critical and supportive of religion so they could make a relatively informed decision. If they adopted a hard line fundamentalist belief and became intolerant of any other belief system, that would bother me. For example, if they adopted the belief system of some of my relatives (Southern Baptist), who are some of the most un-christian people I have come accross, even though some are ministers, I probably would be very dissappointed and perhaps a bit angry. But, if they try to live by the golden rule, like I try to, and it made them happy, then I would be happy for them.
It’s late and hopefully the above makes some sense, I’m off to sleepland.
ZR
I didn’t imply you were delusional. I stated that “imaginary” could be substitued for “supernatural”. I wasn’t bluffing and the differences between the definitions of the two words is pretty slim. Whether or not you are actually delusional is your problem.
As for playing hurt: bullshit. I’m simply amused at the all the question-loading. If you didn’t want to hear a subsititute for “supernatural”, then why ask for one? If the word suggested struck you as unsuitable, the polite thing would be to explain why, and not to imply the person making the suggestion was ignorant. Since I know for a fact that I am not an ignorant person, the implied insult inspires a chuckle, not ire or pouting or even gunfire (implying I’d shoot someone who disagreed with me is borderline libelous, actually, though it’s clear you were speaking metaphorically).
I don’t have any ire for you. I am slowly building up a small amount of contempt, though. Ironically, even I, an atheist, can think of practical applications and measurable effects of belief in some elements of the supernatural/imaginary, while you couldn’t (or wouldn’t bother to try). I’ll give examples, if you ask nicely.
I would be dissappointed, not only in my kid but in myself as a parent.
It would be along the lines of taking your kid with you every time you bought a car to teach them what to watch out for vis a vis car salesmen tricks and scams, only to see them get taken and buy a lemon the first time they buy a car on their own. Id not really be sure if it was my teaching that was lacking, or that I just plain spawned an idiot.
But Id probably accept it, knowing that to argue would just kick in adolescent rebellion. In the end Id have to assume it was a phase, primarily because my ego wouldnt easily accept that my kids were so easily conned; like if they came home tattooed and pierced, Id leave them alone to grow out of it in fear of making it any worse. If they didnt grow out of it, then frankly I wouldnt have much respect for my kids intelligence. I would continue to love them yes, but I would feel as if I was always going to have to keep on eye on their interests for the rest of their lives; that they themselves are too easily duped to be able to be truly left to themselves to thrive.
I hope that I have brought my child up to think independently, and to question everything before coming to any conclusion. She knows that I am an atheist, but she also knows that this does not prohibit me from respecting other people’s beliefs.
It would surprise, but not horrify, me if she suddenly found God. She has been raised in a Catholic culture, and is well aware of both the comfort and hypocrisy inherent to belief. If she joined a mainstream, non-obsessive and non-exclusive church, I would have no problem with respecting her faith. I’m confident that she would only do so after careful consideration. If she joined any kind of fundamentalist religion, I would have a hard time with it, just as I would with anything else that she did which appeared to be in direct conflict with the way she was raised.
You know it’s kind of interesting to see a number of atheists here who were raised Catholic and who would be appalled if their children became “fundamentalists” (which I assume would inlcude mainstream Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc.), but less upset if they became Catholic.
I say it’s interesting because I grew up in a Protestant environment, and I (an atheist) would be somewhat more perturbed if my child joined the Catholic church than if they joined one of the various Protestant denominations. (Either way, though, my policy would be to allow my children to make their own informed decisions in these matters.)
Similarly, my Dad (who is an atheist raised in the Church of Christ) got visibly upset when I flirted with becoming a Baptist as a lad, but had no objection to my attending the local Church of Christ.
I guess even atheists (or at least some of us) retain a cultural attachment of a sort to the religion with which we were affiliated in our youth.