Sunday, January 10, 2010

ZenTiger Atheists want your children

The Atheist Bus Campaign is amusing. In the competition for ideas, they present theirs for due consideration in a respectful way. The follow up campaign is far more sinister and deviates from this position. We know that the UK Humanist organisation behind this campaign openly attacks religion, and it's primary benefactor, Richard Dawkins, wants to see it stamped out. Apparently, there's no need to make any discernment on "good" religious values or "bad" religious values, such is the depth of rational thinking from the self-professed rationalists.

The latest move is to imply that parents who pass on their values, if derived in any way from their faith, are child abusers. What's their solution? Well, there's what they say, and then there's where the bus is heading.

It's heading to hell, good intentions or not.

--ZenTiger


The topic continues here: Atheists still want your children

29 comment(s):

Angus said...

Q - What's their solution?

A - They don't have one. Progressives only know how to destroy . . . all in the name of some delusion that by destroying traditional societal mores they can play some part in ushering in an epoch unique to human civilization - one free of war, crime, poverty and injustice.

Angus said...

.. meanwhile state employed secular-progressives instill their "values" on children.

http://biggovernment.com/tag/fistgate/

ZenTiger said...

Agreed Angus. This post topic is much, much bigger than the one angle I mentioned. I will try to come back to this and explore further, or maybe that will happen if the comments thread kicks off?

I.M Fletcher said...

Someone should ask them why parents shouldn't be allowed to promote Christianity as one of these 'choices' to kids? Or is that one choice that's not allowed?

If children aren't exposed to Christianity as one of their choices (and who better than their own parents to do it), then that is one less option, but I suppose socialists like that.

Psycho Milt said...

The indoctrination of children is the main reason religions are culturally based; which is in turn the main indicator that religions are created by people, not gods. Dawkins' approach would provide a more accurate picture of what people find philosophically persuasive in a religion by making it a choice made by adults, so in that sense I think it's a sensible idea. It remains an utterly unrealistic one, though.

Danyl said...

No we don't.

ZenTiger said...

Well, not the apathetic ones, obviously.

ZenTiger said...

The indoctrination of children is the main reason religions are culturally based

Why don't we try this instead: "The rearing of children are the main reason cultures are family based."

Dawkins approach would ultimately require separating child from parents to ensure no values were "accidentally inherited".

Andrei said...

What's "indoctrination" mean PM?

Every parent of worth wants to inculcate their children with their values. And there are those who wish to impose their values on other peoples children - sexual perverts are particularly dangerous examples of this.

The secualar are Satan's useful idiots if you ask me.

Andrei said...

Look at this from the BBC and ask yourself why is this even an issue?

Redbaiter said...

" No we don't. "

A blatant lie. There is evidence everywhere that the political indoctrination of children is one of the primary objectives of the leaders of the Progressive movement.

Its starts in pre-schools and it is most starkly evident in universities. The left have converted public education into a political tool, and it is this deliberate perversion of education that has produced a generation of robotic dullards who cannot regularly spell diversity or environment but fervently believe in and endlessly preach the Marxist doctrines that underpin the cause.(whilst kept blithely unaware of their origins)

One could perhaps modify the allegation of lying on the grounds that Danyl is indoctrinated himself, and therefore truly unaware of a reality that is so starkly apparent to those capable of holding a wider political perspective.

Psycho Milt said...

What's "indoctrination" mean PM?

It's instilling in someone knowledge of a particular doctrine, usually with an implied sense of convincing them to accept that doctrine as truth. It's why "Muslim countries" are Muslim and "Christian countries" were at one time Christian. At a more detailed level, it's why "Christian" in Greece mostly means Greek Orthodox and in Poland mostly Catholic.

It's essentially a strong indicator that religions are culturally rather than divinely generated. On that basis, I don't see any problem in principle with leaving it to adults to investigate religions and select the one they find most convincing (or none, of course). It could result in fewer and more convincing religions. I do see pretty basic problems with the idea in practice though, for the obvious reason that parents by definition are tasked with instilling values in their children. Good in theory, unworkable in practice - not the first such idea, won't be the last.

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, that sounds all very fine, but if you think about it and what would happen if children were not allowed to choose their religion until they were adult - it is no choice at all: what you're really talking about is indoctrination by the state.

In the book of proverbs it says, "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." This is true: kids are like little sponges that soak up everything from the environment around them.

Now think: if parents weren't allowed to teach their children religion and children were not allowed to choose a religion until they were adults it would create a spiritual vacuum; and a vacuum doesn't last for long before something has to rush in and fill it. And what would fill that vacuum? The State. The Schools. And we know what kind of moralism they teach.

By the time the child had grown to an adult he would already have been indoctrinated by the Atheism of the State, which is a kind of religion in itself, and would not be open to any other religion at all, and that is what the State would be counting on; their own little socialist puppets.

It would be just another form of control by the State to force their own 'religion' of Atheism.

ZenTiger said...

We are discussing this as if children are today exact clones of their parents, and they are not (at least in our society). Dawkins and others want to go further, but the danger is that their brand of fundamentalism doesn't bother to distinguish between "good" and "bad" when it comes to religion, and the comments I've seen from Dawkins positioning parents passing on religious values as a form of child abuse, sets himself up for justifying far worse abuses.

He'll become just another totalitarian "ends justifies the means" ideologue.

Psycho Milt said...

And what would fill that vacuum? The State.

I'm struggling to picture "The State" as being somehow worse than "The Church" or "The Umma," but not succeeding. At least you get to vote for the guys running the state.

We are discussing this as if children are today exact clones of their parents...

I don't believe so, it's just a matter of "more likely to/less likely to." Clearly there's a pretty significant level of "more likely to" or we wouldn't have Christian or Muslim countries, and parents wouldn't trouble themselves to pass on their values to their children.

ZenTiger said...

I'm struggling to picture "The State" as being somehow worse than "The Church" or "The Umma," but not succeeding. At least you get to vote for the guys running the state.

Yeah, we really stopped the anti-family (smacking) legislation with a vote. and a referendum. /sarcasm.

The key difference why "the state" is worse than "The Church" is because the State is also invested with political and legal power. I haven't suggested we destroy the secular society, but Dawkins and others come close to suggesting we destroy the family. If you legislate that parents cannot teach children their religion, the next thing to follow is enforcing it. Remove children from families and place them in "better" homes? As if that has never happened before. This time, the rationalists will present "rational" reasons, and that makes all the difference I suppose.

Lucia Maria said...

PM,

The difference between The State and The Church or the Umma, is that The State will separate families if the families are not doing what The State deems appropriate. The State tends to see no difference between A Caregiver looking after a child and A Parent. Love, bonds between families, these things that are human are not considered important by The State.

Psycho Milt said...

I just find it difficult to take seriously I.M. Fletcher's pants-wetting at the thought of The State and The Schools getting an influence over our children, is all.

ZenTiger said...

The bit you need to take seriously, is the amount of pant-wetting going on by Dawkinists who think the possibility of utopia on earth can be achieved by destroying religion; and then examine some of the ideas they are discussing to achieve that utopia.

Fletcher's points may then make much more sense to you PM.

MK said...

"I'm struggling to picture "The State" as being somehow worse than "The Church" or "The Umma," but not succeeding. At least you get to vote for the guys running the state."

Ever heard of communism, 100 million dead, heck not even islam can hold a candle to those godless scumbags. Oh and last i checked, they didn't get a vote either. Perhaps you should have just said, "I'm struggling", would have made more sense.

And just on this dawkins clown and his bus, someone should ask that fool what his opinion is on the koran and islam, that'll be the end of that bus.

Psycho Milt said...

You're right - if only Western countries could throw off the yoke of their murderous, totalitarian communist govts...

Canterbury Atheists said...

This is about the clash-of-freedom(s)

The freedom for parents to educate their children in what-ever fashion they see fit.

Versus the freedom to allow children (no I’m not talking about 5 year olds, those mature enough) to make their own minds-up and stake their own path in life.

Teaching children that they are somehow ‘better’ or ‘unique’ destined for heaven when others are doomed to hell, separating them according to their faith from other children is in my books detrimental to society – that’s Dawkins point.

Children should not be separated according to our parents belief in the variants who subscribe to Yahweh, Mohammed, Vishnu or even L.Ron Hubbard etc etc.

This debate is about religious-apartheid for children and if it is healthy for the world we now live in.

I suggest not, given the evidence.

The most peaceful countries are the least religious, where people mix - of that there is no debate.

Have a great day.

Paul.

PS: Dawkins is no fool as MK wrongly suggests and he regularly speaks out against Islam.

I.M Fletcher said...

Paul, still, reading from a quote I saw (page link below), 'religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world'. This is true.

As I have said before, there have been many millions killed in the name of Atheism, much more than religion.

China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn stated the following in relation to atheism:
“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."[28]


PM, I would posit that it is only because of the morals of Christianity that 'Western Governments' are ruled by that distinguishes us from Communists or Fascists, although that connection with religion is slowly being done away with, much to out detriment.

Paul, and what groups should children be separated into? Who should teach them? The State? If not the State then who else would hold so much influence (via state schooling) over them? As I said, children soak up the influences of those around them, no matter what that influence is. You're still talking about indoctrination.

I.M Fletcher said...

Opps, I forgot that link.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527

Canterbury Atheists said...

IMF, you are delusional if you think any of these characters killed ‘in the name of atheism’. These were politically driven demigods and your attack on atheism as a belief system is like telling someone who doesn’t collect stamps, they have a hobby = utterly ridiculous.

Atheists do not believe in your God ‘Yahweh’ and thousands like him, in exactly the same manner you choose to dismiss other gods like Poseidon, Garuda, Mithris – nothing more.

So if you wish to place God into the argument (as above) kindly have the fortitude to give him/her his/her name. For example Elohim, Elohay, Yahweh are three of the dozens of different names given to the one dreamed-up in the Old Testament (the one who created the planet in six days)

And the fascists you lambast are, I presume, the ones from Germany, Spain,Italy - run by Catholics with church backing!

Your arguements have a striking resemblence to these.....

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” (Hitler 1933)

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.” (Hilter as part of a speech he made celebrating the accord Germany made with with The Vatican)

Now I've got that off my chest, back to my points.

The most peaceful countries in the world have the most ‘inclusive’ education systems, so clearly ‘the big bad’ state is doing something right in these countries - right?

The least-peaceful crime-ridden ones (think Northern Ireland as an extreme example) are those where sectarian ‘church involved’ education systems are practiced - right?

Religious education IS divisive and creates barriers to people mixing.

Bringing kids up to think they are superior and ‘educating them’ that every other kid that doesn’t follow their given belief/church is inferior IS divisive.

So kindly debate the proposition I’ve made.

Tell me - why is it the most open and atheistic societies just happen to be the most peaceful?

Peace in the world can not come via ancient religious texts –only- through humanity uniting to solve our own problems, rather than wasting time begging one of the thousands of invisible entities to come help us.

Peace.

Paul.

I.M Fletcher said...

Paul, do you really believe the Hitler quotes you dredged up in your last post or did you just have them handy to cut'n'paste in order to prove a point to a Christian, without having really looked into them at all? I would advise you to check out a five part rebuttal over at AtheismIsDead.com (first part HERE). He goes into the subject in great depth (as I said, five parts) and pretty much crushes the notion.

Now, what is the answer to the question, “If Adolf Hitler was an atheist, why did he keep saying that he believed in God…?” If they only answer of which you can conceive is that Hitler was such a fine, upstanding and honest individual that he must have been telling the truth and if he said it he must have believed it, you are in danger of falling for the propaganda. And this is the power of the atheists who make such arguments; they believe what Hitler stated and urge others to do likewise.
Do you really believe anything that anyone states? Did you not go on to wonder what Hitler meant by “God”? Who is this “God” to which he referred? What was Hitler’s specific theology? Etc.


There are references to different 'gods' and 'goddesses' in Mein Kampf

ps, thanks anyway for the quotes etc. I never would have looked and found Atheism Is Dead otherwise. It's looking like an awesome site.

scrubone said...

Paul, clearly you have read very little about religion under communism. My own mother prayed for years for entire books of Christians in Russia who had been locked up for their beliefs. I receive emails from an organisation who is dedicated to exposing the persecution of Christians by the communist Chinese government. The last one mentions (in part) 14 people arrested in a house-church for "illegal religious activities".

As for your "someone who doesn't collect stamps" allegory, it's nonsense. Someone who doesn't collect stamps is an agnostic, an Atheist believes stamps must never be collected.

The communists in China do consider the church a threat politically, but they also have atheist contempt for religion and consider it a service to society and the state to lock away Christians before they spread "poisonous ideas".

Funnily enough, you show that same contempt yourself.

libertyscott said...

I think there is a world of difference between parents passing on their values, and labelling children by religion. I see it as akin to labelling children by politics.

I'd be appalled if anyone told me their children are libertarians, communists, socialists, conservatives or whatever, up till their teens anyway. I equally can't see how children can be considered to have chosen catholicism, islam, judaism or atheism either until they have the cognitive ability, and exposure to competing ideas.

I accept religious schools in a free society as long as nobody is forced to pay for them (or indeed any other schools), and for parents to instill whatever values they like (and yes some will instill none or nazism or racism or promiscuous hedonism).

The same should apply to politics and philosophy generally. It's why children don't have a vote and aren't held criminally responsible for their actions until a certain age. They shouldn't be labelled as Muslim or Christian children either, because it implies they carry values they cannot realistically have chosen to sign up to (and also implies to some that they have less value as a result).

Canterbury Atheists said...

Avoiding the crux of my argument it is YOU that broached the subject of politics/religion and not me – I just turned your so-called ‘points’ around on you to destroy your semantics that somehow atheism was behind all the totalitarian regimes on the planet, inherently evil.

I would rather we debated the point subject this blog article related to –but it is you guys that are going off on your tangent and playing ‘the man’ and ‘not the ball’.

To repeat….

The most peaceful countries in the world have the most ‘inclusive’ education systems, ‘liberal societies’ so clearly ‘the big bad’ state is doing something right and ‘liberty’ has its benefits in these countries - right?

The least-peaceful, crime-ridden ones (think Northern Ireland as an extreme example) are those where sectarian ‘church involved’ education systems are practiced - right?

Religious education IS divisive and creates barriers to people mixing.

Bringing kids up to think they are superior and ‘educating them’ that every other kid that doesn’t follow their given belief/church is inferior IS divisive.

So kindly debate the proposition I’ve made.

Tell me - why is it the most open and atheistic societies just happen to be the most peaceful?

Surely the most theistic countries would be the most peaceful and be the safest?

Am remember you are just one god ( a.k.a Yahweh if you would care to name him) away from where I am.

Have a great-day.

Paul.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.