I wrote a lesson plan awhile ago on teaching children the slippery slope fallacy; the lesson begins with my proposing to give them cookies and concluding that if I give them cookies, CITIES WILL BURN! I suspect you’re making a very similar error.
Wars don’t get started because someone believes another person’s religion is factually incorrect and tells this to their children. Wars get started because people believe that strangers gotta believe the same thing about the cosmos as they believe, and are willing to kill the strangers in order to terrorize them into belief. That’s a big honkin’ difference, and it’s not real fair to Pochacco to gloss over it like this.
I believe everyone has the right to believe what they like, and I shan’t try to stop them. In my opinion, though, believing in magic and fairy tales as ways to guide one’s life is depressingly ignorant.
I wanted to answer this question here, per your wishes.
If my child asked me whether or not there was a heaven, I would explain that some people thought there was, and some people thought there wasn’t. I would then tell him or her why I thought there was one.
A different emphasis than what I mapped out for you, I know. But we are raising our children within the traditions of our own faith.
In either case, I think it an honest approach, and respectful of the child’s beliefs as well.
Pochacco is saying that if his daughter asks about heaven, he’ll discuss it.
…Which is exactly what Mr. Moto suggested, and then he replied confirming he agrees with the way Pochacco is handling it. What’s the big deal?
I would say this is a completely pointless thread, but it’s at least taught me that atheists can be over-sensitive dicks over their beliefs just like anyone else.
The big deal is that Pochacco had expressly requested no religious advice, only secular. Mr. Moto’s response not only told the OP to bring religion into it, but cast it as being honest – implying that not to mention a religious answer would be dishonest.
Had the situation been reversed – had the OP specifically asked only for religiously oriented answers and someone had posted recommending the “Rotting in a box in the ground” approach, then not bothered to apologize when the OP pointed out he was dealing with such things just fine, thank you, and didn’t want to hear any more on the topic – I would find it equally offensive.
Look, what’s so hard to understand? “I’m dealing with X and would like help, but please not in Y terms.” “No, no, you have to talk about Y or you’re not being honest.” You don’t think that’s rude?
And referring to people’s religious beliefs as “magic and fairy tales” is depressingly insensitive. You think those beliefs are crap – fine. But you seem to be making a deliberate effort to offend.
That said, I’m OK with parents saying a religion is “not true”. Eventually, their kids will come to understand that some things their parents say are opinions and not proven (or proveable) facts. However, saying the people who believe in a religion are stupid (or “depressingly ignorant” if you prefer) doesn’t seem likely to instill open-mindedness or tolerance in your kids.
Native religions have nothing to do with “magic” or “fairy tales”. That’s a misdirected view brought over by oppresive and hateful white settlers. If that’s what you think, then you are the one who’s ignorant.
Mr. Moto’s first reply was basically “I know you don’t want to talk about it from a religious point of view, but if your daughter brings it up, you probably should”
I’d find it no more or less unreasonable if a Christian had asked the question looking for religious replies and some one had said
FTR, I’m agnostic, currently leaning towards atheism.
Saying “I bet she did” is a lie (particularly for an atheist). The part about anything else being a failure to make the child unafraid implies that someone isn’t doing their job. The word “abuse” may have been a bit strong. Implicit of bad parenting would probably be more accurate.
I was taking great pains not to be rude, and I was showing due deference toward the OP’s philosophical atheism.
That does not mean, though, that his daughter won’t come up with questions of a very religious nature, given the upbringing of her classmates. I was just warning that that might happen, and suggesting a strategy toward dealing with it.
At no time did I advocate any kind of faith based approach to grief, as it would not be appropriate for this family. And that’s how I interpreted the admonition about religion.
My apologies, then, Mr. Moto, that I misread your intention. Though I do think casting your advice in terms of honesty was, shall we say, not the most felicitous of phrasings. Nevertheless, I withdraw the fulmigations and animadversions.
I would suggest, though, that your initial comments seemed – to me at least – to assume that Pochacco had not already considered and dealt with the issue of religious ideas presented to his daughter by her classmates and the world around her, at least in terms suitable for her age. If I may in my turn leap into the murky waters of assumption, it would seem highly likely to me that most atheist or agnostic parents, given their minority status in our society, would have thought long and hard about how to approach the topic of religion with their children. With that basis, telling someone who has requested only secular advice that s/he nonetheless has to talk about religion seems to me to be inappropriate.
No, in fact, he didn’t. He simply said that the kid might come home from school with questions about religious concepts like heaven and hell, and that the parent should be prepared to deal honestly with the inquiry. This pit thread is nothing more than a tangible manifestation of one atheist’s inferiority complex. The problem here is that most evangelical atheists are as illogical as their theist counterparts, and are generally unwilling to honestly accept the truth about their atheism, namely that it has the same factual basis as the theist’s belief does: none. There is no more proof to support the statement “There is no god” than there is to support the statement “there is a god”. Atheists will tie themselves into knots rather than admit this absurdly simple fact that every 5 year old knows is true. If they would leave things at “I don’t believe there is a god”, this whole thing would be a non issue. Instead many of them can’t leave well enough alone and instead take a page from their theist counterparts, they feel the need to proselytize.
I’m not making a deliberate effort to offend, unless AFG is as well. I’m not 100% on anything, but I’m pretty sure I believe all religions are pure bunk. Obviously, the religious people and I are never going to agree on this one. I am not of the opinion that everyone’s beliefs have to be coddled. If you believe it that strongly, nothing I say should matter - and I’m certainly not out in the street screaming that everyone who’s religious is an idiot. I’m just offering an opinion on here.
If you think I’m telling my kids “Anyone who believes in a religion is an idiot,” then you have a depressingly black-and-white view of the world. I know my kids are going to have their own beliefs - daughter wants to go to church with Grandma, and I let her. However, when she asked me about Heaven and the afterlife, I just told her “Nobody knows for sure because no one who’s been dead has been able to come back and tell us.” She’s decided that people get reincarnated for right now, it seems. I have no idea what she’ll decide to believe next week. A few months ago she believed she could control our gerbils with her mind. So.
Tone it down a notch; you’re starting to foam at the mouth. If NATIVE RELIGIONS believe there’s anything but the unknown beyond death, then, in my opinion, it’s still a fairy tale. Honestly I haven’t delved into native religions because I am both not religious AND not in a fervor to learn every aspect of the culture of indigenous North Americans. Pardon my extreme lack of educational breadth.
I have every right to be pissed when you view the beliefs of my culture as “fairy tales”. You haven’t delved into it? You don’t know anything about it? Then keep your mouth shut about it.
FWIW, I would also (and have, when the subject of death has come up) tell my kids that not all people believe in heaven, and I’m not sure there is such a place. We none of us know (although I’m pretty sure not), so where is the harm? Why not let the kid decide her comfort level with it?
But then, perhaps not all parents are ok with that.
I think there is definetly a time to debate and explore theology and logic and metaphysics etc, but maybe not at age 5. Just as there may be no reason to push angels and eternal happiness onto kids, there may be no reason to leave them with stark realism and decomposing bodies as comfort. Surely there is a middle ground somewhere.
I don’t get why people pretend like “telling the truth” is some sort of great moral imperative in a situation like this (again, like with the people who act like letting your kids write letters to Santa Claus is evil.) Children do not know the whole truth. Sometimes, they are given accounts of reality that grossly distort it or omit major things. When you give your kid the birds and the bees account, you don’t tell it how much Mommy loves her nipple clamps.
If you’re an atheist, then obviously there is less reason to push your views than if you’re Christian; a Christian parent believes their kid’s eternal salvation rests upon belief. For an atheist, no such excuse exists. Telling your child that there’s no God - if that’s what you believe - is at best unnecessary; there is no reason not to let your child make up their own mind - it’s not like you or I actually know the answer to any cosmic question. That’s the real problem with “telling it like it is” - it’s arrogant to pretend that you have anything more than the rest of us; these things are all matters of opinion when it’s all said and done.
You know, I’m not even a strongly atheistic person. I don’t know WHAT the hell is going on in the great wide open. Most of the time, logically, I believe religion was a way for folks to explain what happened in the world around them when they weren’t yet scientifically advanced enough to explain it with facts … but shouldn’t be necessary any more since we are able to explain more every year about how and why things function as they do.
I understand that a great number of people feel the need to believe in or worship some sort of supernatural being to fill something in themselves. I’m glad a lot of them have chosen relatively benign beings to believe in. However, another’s comfort in them does not require me to respect those ideas. It doesn’t matter what religion it is. I think it’s bullshit.
Now, on the street or in a casual setting or in a more civilized debate thread, I would be FAR less direct in my classification of your Firmly Held Religious Beliefs as a lot of mythological brain candy. However, I don’t feel that this thread or anyone’s post in it is worth going to the effort of being tactful.
I wrote a lesson plan awhile ago on teaching children the slippery slope fallacy; the lesson begins with my proposing to give them cookies and concluding that if I give them cookies, CITIES WILL BURN! I suspect you’re making a very similar error.