I thought I was browsing anonymously

You are. I can see you anyway.

Oh ok, so you were just abusing your administrator privileges.

PS. Hi Julia!

What the!!?? How do you know I'm reading this thread? I thought I was browsing anonymously

Well you're not now, are you?

LOL neat trick.

PS. Hi Julia!

What the!!?? How do you know I'm reading this thread? I thought I was browsing anonymously

Stupid atheists.

The trouble is that all children are "indoctrinated," whether the parents like it or not.

So? You seem to be suggesting that because avoiding indoctrinating would be very difficult, it isn't a good approach.

The single best predictor of a person's views, is their parents' views. And children are clever beggars: they aren't fooled by our pretenses of neutrality. They're very good at figuring out what we REALLY think, and then they go with that.

I'm not suggesting you try to fool them. Be open and honest about your beliefs, but don't force them upon your children.

My parents voted Labor all their life. It is more likely that I will vote Labor too because children often follow their parents cue, particularly when they don't know any different. The difference is that its not been drummed into me since I was in nappies that the very idea of voting for anyone other than Labor is wrong, and to actually go ahead and vote otherwise is a sinful act which God hates and will punish me for. Therefore I don't have an innate fear that voting for anyone other than Labor will be physically and spiritually harmful for me. Therefore I am free to vote without fear of eternal damnation. And indeed, I think I've only ever voted for them once which was the first time I ever voted (I hadn't done any research and didn't really know who else to vote for).

A believer raising their kids to "make up their own mind" will end up producing a believer; an atheist doing the same thing will end up producing an atheist. A hypocritical churchgoer will raise an unbeliever; and a superstitious person who attends no church will nevertheless raise a believer (in whatever). Perhaps not always, but usually.

Do you have any evidence for these ideas?

Atheist's don't believe in anything, they LACK belief. There is no such thing as a non-hypocritical churchgoer is there? Your third remark about superstitious non-church goers sounds like something just made up on the spot.

The thing is, there IS a alternative, you just need to learn and understand the difference between childhood religious education and religious indoctrination:

Religious Indoctrination is the process of continually subjecting children to complex religious rituals, ceremonies, laws and doctrines before they have the ability to critically assess and consent to what they are doing.

Religious Education is the process of educating children about the sociological phenomenon of religion, one that is found in every human culture. Its doesn't favour any one religion over another.


I'll leave you with a remark from Mr Schopenhauer:

And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence." (Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue)

The Bible says we are to indoctrinate our children - see Deuteronomy 6 and Proverbs 3 for instance. But far from producing psychological damage this is designed to help them! Nobody is forcing us to teach our kids nonsense; we can stick to sensible Bible principles.

Hahaha. Yeah.

So we have Budster saying children can't help but be indoctinated by their parents, Richard saying the bible commands parents to indoctrinate, and Ev giving us the exceptions that prove the rule via anecdotal evidence of people who have managed to overcome their childhood indoctrination.

I want to know what 'indoctrination' is supposed to mean in this context.

It means childhood religious indoctrination. You know, like kind the Amish do, or the Mormons, or JW's.

As for 'forcing them to believe', that's an oxymoron. You can't force people to believe something.

Yeah, but you still know exactly what I mean. You love that tactic don't you - picking on technical errors - pointing out where someone has forgotten to cross their 't' and then acting as if it invalidates their entire argument.

In any case, the Christadelphian mantra has always been 'prove it for yourself, don't just take our word for it.'

Oh sure, prove the existence of God to yourself for your own benefit (but don't forget... you arrive at any other conclusion than that God exists, you will be disfellowshipped, and you can kiss life, friends, family as you know it goodbye).

It's easy to look at the evidence that confirms what you want to be true. But it's approaching the whole thing frmo the wrong end. You need to be teaching your kids to search and investigate the evidence that disproves their beliefs. Much harder, but much more reliable for arriving at truth. It's the correct and proper way to evaluate the veracity and validity of your beliefs. You know it and you know it's not the typical approach that christadelphians take when teaching their children their beliefs.

When was the last time you attended a study weekend on the subject of 'Examining the evidence for the non-existence of God'. Haven't seen any Wednesday night studies on the subject "How would we know if God didn't exist" lately have you? How about Sunday lecture on "'the invisible God vs. the non-existent God - how can we tell the difference"? No?

I think it's wrong to label a child a 'christadelphian child',

How many times do people ever actually do this? Christadelphians are practically notorious for doing the opposite; you're typically not considered a Christadelphian until you're baptized, and we eschew infant baptism.

Oh please!!!! Why don't we take a trip to Heritage College and ask all the kids in grade 1 to put up their hand if they are Christadelphian. If you really think the majority would keep their hand down, your delusional.

... calling every Christian 'deluded' smacks of petulance and whining at the fact that his Outsider Test hasn't resulted in every Christian deconverting and thanking him for delivering them from obscurantist bondage.

I haven't looked deeply into his "outsider test," but it sounds like something Wittgenstein would have enjoyed: it presupposes some significant unknowns about how beliefs are formed--including atheistic beliefs. It's true that your parents believing something is the best predictor of your believing something, so if you equate "insider" with "raised in this belief," it clearly plays an important role.

But what exactly disposes a person to convert from anything to anything? Loftus is apparently presupposing that conversion to atheism always results from a coldly rational disposition to follow the evidence wherever it leads--but if that we the case, we wouldn't have phenomena like Bedson, who deconverts and then spends his life begging and pleading for his former associates to validate his deconversion by joining him. It wouldn't fully account for Dawkins, or Coyne, or their type, either: even if their atheism were purely rational, that wouldn't explain their evangelism. What prompts them (even assuming they're right) to take on the doomed cause of fighting ignorance and error? What makes them want to spread their views, instead of being content with their own rationality?

Loftus and the likes want to help believers for the same reason a wrongly convicted criminal would wants to help other wrongly convicted criminals get out and bring those who made false accusations brought to justice. Loftus begs and plead with believers for the same reasons an ex drug addict wants to help users quit. They know what it's like, the know from experience it's only the addiction that is making them want the drug, and not that they actually need it.

What prompts them to blog about it all is the fact that religious people are so *not* content with their own irrationality - and they constantly try to impose it on others through government policy, school education etc. Read this http://freethoughtbl...theists-and-an/ and claim igorance no more. Every reason stated is why atheists speak up.

One of the main reasons I don't just 'go away' is because I believe it's wrong to indoctrinate children like christadelphians do - for some, it can cause lasting and serious psychological damage. I think it's wrong to label a child a 'christadelphian child', for the same reasons its wrong to label them an 'atheist child', or 'communist child'. I think it's wrong to force children to believe before they've developed the cognitive ability to evaluate the evidence for and against what they are being told. I also think it's wrong press religious beliefs on children who have not yet had an opportunity to study the alternatives in depth. If your particular religion is true, they should be allowed to come to believe it on the merits of it's evidence, rather than because it has been rammed down their throat them from a young age. How can a young adult ever assess the evidence without bias when they fear the punishment in line for them if they don't believe?

Captive elephants are controlled with a simple rope tied around one leg and tethered to a stake. They could easily break free of it but they don't even try, because it was first used on them when they were very young. As adults, they don't question the lesson. All John Loftus etc are trying to do is get people to look at that rope and think honestly and objectively as they can about why they are happy to be tethered there.

A persons choice is only as valid as their freedom to say no. I'm sure you noticed, but in christadelphia, there's not much room to not believe. So unfortunately when kids eventually are of an age where they should be able to make a choice, they are often far too indoctrinated with fear to ever be able to choose without constraint.

I don't want to assume or guess, which is why I'm asking. What makes you believe homosexual acts are morally wrong?

Because they're incompatible with the moral system I regard as valid.

Why?

Do you believe adultery is morally wrong, and if so on what basis?

It does depend on the circumstances, but generally yes, I think it's wrong to break a promise and betray the trust of someone you love.

I agree that such behaviour should have consequences.

But a punishment of death does not fit the crime.

In your opinion.

In the opinion of most of the civilised world as well. Do you think death is a just punishment for adultery?

What is it that makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do?

You mean 'stoning of adulterers.' Both parties were put to death, not just one.

What makes it the right thing to do?

Firstly the need for social cohesion, essential to the stability of ANE nomadic tribal communities (theft was outlawed for similar reasons, and still is today). Secondly the fact that marriage was intended to reflect the relationship between God and His people. Adultery (whether literal or figurative) violates this relationship and must therefore be punished.

I agree that such behaviour should have consequences.

But a punishment of death does not fit the crime.

How do you guys feel about the fact that it was once just to stone [MEN AND WOMEN] to death for adultery?

How do you think we feel? I personally find the Law of Moses utterly abhorrent in many respects, including this one.

I honestly don’t know, hence my question. I half expected you to say that you thought there was nothing wrong with it at all!

But I agree with you.

I can’t help but wonder why he even bothered with it, seeing as he did away with it in the end anyway.

If it were your wife that had been found guilty of adultery, would you have had any objections to her being stoned? Would you have seen it as just punishment?

I honestly don't know. It's easy to say 'No' with several thousand years of socio-cultural development and cultural conditioning on my side, but if I was a Bronze Age nomad who'd known nothing better it's more likely I would have considered this entirely fair.

Anyone who claims unequivocally that even if they'd been born and raised in pre-modern times they would still have upheld postmodern values is fooling themselves.

Ultimately though, regardless of what anyone then (or now) thought about it, it would ultimately have to be just, because it was given by God, right?

Does it trouble you that God commanded such abhorrent laws and that they were once considered just and right?

Julia, does it trouble you that the Law of Moses called the action of adultery to account, yet the law of Christ is more stringent (prohibits the thought?)

Yes. I think it's unfair because it's impossible. It sets people up to fail.

So what is it that makes you believe they are morally wrong?

That's a stupid question. Given I'm a Christadelphian, what do you think?

I don't want to assume or guess, which is why I'm asking. What makes you believe homosexual acts are morally wrong?

What about homosexual acts? Are they morally right or wrong?

As far as I am concerned, they are morally wrong. However, I believe secular governments are morally obligated to provide homosexuals with the same rights and privileges as all other citizens, and treat them equally under the law. In my view, secular governments have no right to outlaw homosexual acts.

So what is it that makes you believe they are morally wrong?

What makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do back in OT times?

Just the fact that people decided it was morally right. What makes actions morally right today? We decide they are morally right. Tomorrow we may decide they are morally wrong, an then they will be morally wrong.

Why did God command it?

To preserve social relations within the community.

In your view is homosexuality morally right or wrong?

It's neither morally right nor wrong, any more than being autistic is morally right or wrong.

How do you arrive at your conclusion?

By definition, morality judges actions, not psychological states.

I see. What about homosexual acts? Are they morally right or wrong?

What is it that makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do?

Whatever we decide. Since morality is completely subjective, there's no baseline for objective comparison. Morals are what we say they are, actions are moral or immoral according to what we decide at any point in time.

What makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do back in OT times? Why did God command it?

In your view is homosexuality morally right or wrong? How do you arrive at your conclusion?

Does it trouble you that God commanded such abhorrent laws and that they were once considered just and right?

Not as much as if would if these laws prohibited actions which were necessary for the preservation of life, altruistic, virtually unavoidable, or accidental. In Western countries it is typical for people to be imprisoned for years (even decades), simply for moving items from one room to another, even if these actions are altruistic. This seems grossly unjust to me, but the vast majority of people have no problem with it at all.

I’m glad you are troubled by them.

Personally, I think stoning someone to death falls within the parameters of ‘a prohibition on an action necessary for the preservation of life’.

Ultimately though, regardless of what anyone then (or now) thought about it, it would ultimately have to be just, because it was given by God, right?

That's certainly one view. Speaking personally, I'm not satisfied by the 'if God commanded it, it's OK by definition' argument. I don't believe the moral value of a command is derived entirely from its source. It must have reference to other factors.

What is it that makes the stoning of an adulterer the morally right thing to do?

Does it trouble you that God commanded such abhorrent laws and that they were once considered just and right?

Not as much as if would if these laws prohibited actions which were necessary for the preservation of life, altruistic, virtually unavoidable, or accidental. In Western countries it is typical for people to be imprisoned for years (even decades), simply for moving items from one room to another, even if these actions are altruistic. This seems grossly unjust to me, but the vast majority of people have no problem with it at all.

My dad once told me off for moving his wallet from his pocket to mine! How unfair is that!

How do you guys feel about the fact that it was once just to stone [MEN AND WOMEN] to death for adultery?

How do you think we feel? I personally find the Law of Moses utterly abhorrent in many respects, including this one.

I honestly don’t know, hence my question. I half expected you to say that you thought there was nothing wrong with it at all!

But I agree with you.

I can’t help but wonder why he even bothered with it, seeing as he did away with it in the end anyway.

If it were your wife that had been found guilty of adultery, would you have had any objections to her being stoned? Would you have seen it as just punishment?

I honestly don't know. It's easy to say 'No' with several thousand years of socio-cultural development and cultural conditioning on my side, but if I was a Bronze Age nomad who'd known nothing better it's more likely I would have considered this entirely fair.

Anyone who claims unequivocally that even if they'd been born and raised in pre-modern times they would still have upheld postmodern values is fooling themselves.

Ultimately though, regardless of what anyone then (or now) thought about it, it would ultimately have to be just, because it was given by God, right?

Does it trouble you that God commanded such abhorrent laws and that they were once considered just and right?

How do you guys feel about the fact that it was once just to stone a woman to death for adultery? To not stone an adulterer to death would have been disobeying God. If it were your wife that had been found guilty of adultery, would you have had any objections to her being stoned? Would you have seen it as just punishment?