Dawkins and childish assumptions

I agree with you - actually I think your last point is spot on - but it would be good to develop the argument without the sense of exasperation which mirrors Dawkin's own.

So would you send your child to a mosque if one was close to your home? With your attitude the faith of a child depends on his locality. Your telling me a belief system does not depend on the truth of its god but its location.

Its not a matter of being ignorant of your neighbours religion. Ignorance and ignoring the blatant brain washing the faithful commit their children to, is child abuse.

After centuries of religion being passed as certainties, its well over due that we have ardent atheists making a stand. For ever Dawkins advocating critical investigation into accepted faith driven religions, you will have a thousand blinkered ignorant fools demanding we believe in the most foul and stupid dogmatic scriptures. His profile is only maintained because he speaks for many like minded thinkers, he at last gives a balance to the whole debate.

oh, it's equal brainwashing time that you're actually after. and why not ? send em to atheist church too. now it's all good and balanced

Seems to me that you're missing the fact that to the parents it is fact, and so are justified in teaching it.

So you believe that its the right of the parents to teach them what they think is correct? Do you think that is the case on all occasions? You dont think the state should be the judge on what is educated to our youths?

I believe the state should provide the main curriculum for all children. But parents should be allowed to teach their children whatever they think is beneficial. You can't rely on state education to cover everything.

What about something completely non-religious like being vegetarian? Is it 'brainwashing' if a parent teaches their child that it is wrong to kill animals for food before the child can make that decision independently?

or wrong to hit others. how about that. wrong to teach that it's wrong. the state needs to get involved with the education of the two year olds. the terrible two year olds.
calling Dr. Dawkins...calling Dr. Dawkins...the Sensible One.

please , sir, do we abuse when we tell the child it's wrong to hit, even there is not a shred of empirical evidence to tell us it's wrong ?

"That doesn't matter. Just don't teach religion and do teach Selfish Gene and everything is groovy. or be cast out. Your choice. If we hear about you questioning, you will be removed, for your child abuse."

So would you send your child to a mosque if one was close to your home? With your attitude the faith of a child depends on his locality. Your telling me a belief system does not depend on the truth of its god but its location.

I think the important matter is the moral message, not the fact that the messenger was somehow supernatural.

So I think I'm entitled to bemoan an aspect of education without any motivation to teach.

But that's the thing with evoking the Nazis as an example - because they used a bit of everything to justify themselves - they can be held up as evidence of why using any particular justification is a bad thing.

Yes, they are each differently dogmatic. The moral principles are based on tradition and are not to for the believer to decide upon. The ten commandments are set in stone as it were.

Well, we agree on religion at it's worst. But see, in your last sentence you still have the conclusion "Jesus is authoritative". If the sermon is a great teaching, then they can eventually be taught why, and the reason surely can't be because Jesus said it.

Any time you teach children morals, it's going to be a kind of "this is how it is", with some stories to help perhaps. They aren't going to read mill as you said. You can teach them a moral framework with stories etc in the way you are describing good religion. What isn't necessary is the concepts of god, heaven and hell that come along with it. Belief in the supernatural is not necessary.

You did, but when raising a child how do you know that they will not feel obligated to stick with the religion they were taught? And if you agree that freedom is a good thing then why religion at all?

Moral disagreement isn't the same as other disagreement. If I say I like dill pickles and you say you like bread and butter, neither of us care about the disagreement. If you say stealing is wrong and I say it isn't, then we aren't just disagreeing.

And do atheists have trouble with this? There is metaphysical philosphy without religion.

I don't really see a strong argument for religion being taught to children, unless you wish to expand or water down the definition of religion.

How far would you allow, what they feel is beneficial ? Giving them the opportunity to see more than one religion and the debate that might follow is not denying them their parental rights. Whoever decides it should be introduced when they have the ability to rationalise the questions. In my opinion those parents who are so determine have suffered the same indoctrination. The Nazis thought that sending their children to Hitler youth camps, was the right thing to do. If your truth is so certain introduce it when they are free to choose.

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 11:29 AM ----------

There is just a little difference in teaching your child moral behaviour and telling them that there is a god for certain.

So religious indoctrination is essential no matter what your beliefs are?

why ? why is it OK to tell 2 yr old Johnny for certain that it's bad that Johnny strikes out at others? what empirical evidence have you got, to show that it it's bad ? What is the measure of badness here ? social acceptability ? I'm afraid that religion is socially acceptable.

did someone say that ?

If its beyond your comprehension to see the difference between teaching moral behaviour and indoctrinating a child into a dogmatic faith, my attempts will never help you.

So what would you call telling a child that god exists. Mummy and Daddy believe it, that nice man with the white frock will tell you all about it. Sing songs about the wonder of god and never let him question your faith without advising him of his rights. Look at the percentages, when its taught it sticks like ship.

Humans have, after all, done exactly what I am supporting since humans have existed.

It also seems to be the case that using God in that instruction is often times productive, useful, helpful, a benefit to the student.

then it is indeed fortunate for me, that I am not dependent on your explanations.
oh, the assumption that Johnny is not allowed to question.

Is that indeed necessarily a part of religion ? Are some religions allowing questioning, and others aren't, some parents allowing questioning, and others aren't ?
Let's take Judaeism. Is questioning allowed by parents ?
and let's take moral values taught without religion. Is questioning allowed by parents ? when a parent says "do not hit others" to 2 year old Johhny, what kind of philosophical response would one expect from Johnny ?

If not to try it out some more until at 4 or somewhere he gets some physical retribution happening on his behind. Ain't that the way it goes...what is the parent's final secular argument to be ? that if you do not accept this as true, that you should not hit others, then eventually the police will "take you away".
force.threats of permanent loss of family unit security = loss of life as it is known..

I have two grown boys, now 17 and 21. Fortunately, they are generally balanced and sane individuals. They got a lot of religious influence at a young age from maternal grandmother, who is a very pious Christian (but in no way a disciplinarian or evangelical.) Her family are in, or actually make up, a rather quaint, old-fashioned dissident protestant sect, rather like the Amish, but not nearly so severe.

Personally I am very glad my boys got an exposure to this thinking at a young age. I think it was character-forming for them. I never lectured them about anything religious, although we have always had many deep conversations about life the universe and everything (especially older son, who is studying journalism.) Neither are now religiously committed in any way, but I think they have a subliminal, basic religious ethic. Younger son is slightly interested in Buddhism, or anyway thinks it is 'cool'.

Brainwashing - interesting that so many are so aghast at the diabolical influence of the 'foul and dogmatic' churches in a world awash with consumerism, pornography, commercialisation of values, the sexualisation of children, the constant exposure to gratuitous and meaningless violence, the worship of promotion and the constant promotion of alchohol and cheap thrills. We have currently an epidemic of youth drunkeness, an epidemic of chlamydia and an epidemic of youth suicide, to name a but few symptoms of our brilliantly enlightened and religion-free culture.