Raliegh Marsden wrote:You should just speak your mind. No one will judge you for it.

If you believed this, you wouldn't post things like this.

You're obviously free to discuss whatever you like. But you can't force others to follow your bel...point of view.

You would just speak your mind. Nope, instead you walk up to the edge of the dock, dangle that bait...

Raliegh Marsden wrote:You should just speak your mind. No one will judge you for it.

I always speak my mind, and I couldn't give a flying fuck how I'm judged for it. Do you have anything substantive in response, or is it just the usual cretinous bum-custard we've come to expect from apologists for drivel?

Raleigh wrote:
Part of freedom of thought is the right to be wrong.

There is no intrinsic or specifically granted right by any constitution to be wrong. What you have in some societies is an assurance that you will not be officially punished for being wrong. And this assurance is often contingent on what it is that you are wrong about.

A constitutional protection of unpopular speech does not automatically grant a right to be wrong. It just recognizes that sometimes people are wrong, and if no harm to others ensued then there is no victim therefore no punishable offence. Slander, libel, and yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire are expressions of thought that are wrong and there is no right associated with them.

Raleigh wrote:
And since no man is an island, sooner or later our ideas and opinions will be expressed to others. And expressing oneself is another very important right, we have to be able to say what we think. So the net result of that is that kids are going to be told the wrong things sometimes. You have to allow for that. You have to allow for them to grow up being wrong, and to have 'incorrect" views, and to make mistakes, and even to become "bad" people. That's life.

Why should we allow for children to be told the wrong things when it could be prevented? Children are not possessions that parents can do as the will with. It may have been so in the past and it may still be so in parts of the world, but it is no longer so, or should not be so in modern western societies.

Where do children’s rights begin? The right to be told something other than religious babble? I think that it begins at infancy. In fact I think that children have a right to be shielded from religious babble until they are old enough to understand what is being told to them.

Hardly any Christian would disagree with this if it concerned Islamic religious babble, but they think that their own religious babble should be protected from all nay sayers.

Everything you just said there makes you sound like someone who's just dying to control other people. You don't want religion controlling kids, because you want to control them instead. Even the thought of them being told something that you disagre with is unbearable to you. That's how obsessed you are with control.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Everything you just said there makes you sound like someone who's just dying to control other people. You don't want religion controlling kids, because you want to control them instead. Even the thought of them being told something that you disagre with is unbearable to you. That's how obsessed you are with control.

This is an assumption that those that seek to limit the control of others are seeking control for themselves. If you give it some thought, I'm sure you can see the problem with that logic.

The trubble is, that those who claim to be against indoctrination (because they want to be the ones doing the indoctrinating), are hypocrites. Yes, I see the problem.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:The trubble is, that those who claim to be against indoctrination (because they want to be the ones doing the indoctrinating), are hypocrites. Yes, I see the problem.

Could you maybe show me some of the atheist doctrine? I've never seen anything that fits the bill.

What's that got to do with anything?

Raliegh Marsden wrote:What's that got to do with anything?

You cannot indoctrinate without a doctrine, or am I wrong?

Semantic games. Let's try in-seeingthingsmyway-ating.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Semantic games. Let's try in-seeingthingsmyway-ating.

It still doesn't make sense. Fighting tyranny does not a tyrant make.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Semantic games. Let's try in-seeingthingsmyway-ating.

Semantic games? OK. Let`s fill that placeholder with, "codification of beliefs and body of teachings, taught principles and positions, et cetera." Are we doing anything in particular that coerces anyone from putting the subjects above into self evaluated scrutiny, scepticism, critical thought and questions, et cetera?

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Everything you just said there makes you sound like someone who's just dying to control other people. You don't want religion controlling kids, because you want to control them instead. Even the thought of them being told something that you disagre with is unbearable to you. That's how obsessed you are with control.

A bit misleading from you part, as Oldskeptic in my interpretation doesn`t want controlling parents to inculcate their children, in which their minds are developing and vulnerable to bad ideologies. Secondly, you may have just tiptoed rather harshly into a slippery slope, and whether you quantified the relevant probabilities, it does not remotely imply that Oldskeptic wants to take command with undeserved obeisance from people who were taught to never examine said teachings, beliefs, et cetera. I honestly can`t understand how you culminated Oldskeptic`s response into insolent talk, "that's how obsessed you are with control." It says a lot from your character, paranoia must be revealing itself.

Interesting how the desire to teach critical thinking is interpreted by believers as a display of control freaking. They are correct, of course, to see education in critical thinking as a threat to their indoctrination.

Raliegh Marsden wrote: Look at schools, their entire function is to train them how to think,

Yes.

and what to believe is real.

No. And therein lies the crucial difference. P.Z. Meyers put it well. (I'm paraphrasing): A student says "the sky is green." If you as a teacher tell him "no, the sky is blue", then you're telling him what to think. On the other hand, if say to him "well, look at it. Here's a spectrophotometer. Point it up in the sky. Measure wavelengths. See for yourself.", then you're not telling him what to think; you're encouraging him to think critically; to question for himself.

People these days love to play the "I'm offended" card. Here's what you should do whenever you feel offended by something : Live with it. Be offended, then get on with your own life. If you find someone's beliefs offensive, that's your thing. They're entitlted to believe anything they like and you're not entitled to stop them.

Yes. Ok.

If the fact that I can believe what I like is fair enough, then that's that, there you go, it's fair.

Sure, fine. Although, if you and I are in a discussion or argument, then I'll certainly disagree with you.

You can't go around interfering in how others bring up their kids.

Now there you're wrong. In the USA, at least, and in many other countries as well, there are strict laws delineating what parents can and cannot do with their kids. As others have pointed out, we do have laws against many forms of child abuse.

It's the privilege of the parent to dictate what's what to the kid, and no one else's.

And many feel that this should also come under the umbrella of child abuse laws - certainly to a greater extent than it already is. (And it already is, to some extent. For example, in the USA, you do have the option of homeschooling your kids. But there are strict laws laying out the requirements of what their home education must include.) It's in the interest of society not to have kids abused. And it's in the interest of society to have kids learn to be critical thinkers.

What is a "New Atheist"?

Raleigh wrote:
Everything you just said there makes you sound like someone who's just dying to control other people.

Well ya picked the wrong person to point that statement at: I have raised two daughters and a grandson in a household where I didn’t want to control even their beliefs, and being an atheist it wasn’t easy. I avoided even influencing their beliefs because I didn’t want little atheists that did not believe only because dad/grandpa didn’t believe. My children were not indoctrinated by anyone including me.

When they were old enough to ask questions I answered their questions. If they asked why I believed in something, or more accurately didn’t believe in something, I told them why. The focus in my house was on education and learning how to think for themselves.

Raleigh wrote:
You don't want religion controlling kids, because you want to control them instead.

Maybe you should have tried to find out more about what I really think rather than jumping to a conclusion. I am nearly as opposed to children being taught a strict atheist stance as I am a strict religious one. I say nearly only because religious stances can involve some very negative psychological/emotional consequences.

In my opinion teaching children how to think is much more important than teaching them what to think, and if you are teaching them a set of beliefs that are set in stone you are not doing that. The best that you could hope for is setting up a dilemma for children to have to deal with, as in trying to figure out when they are supposed to think for themselves and when they are not.

I don’t want anyone controlling children. I want parents guiding and mentoring their children, not trying to mentally sculpt them in their own image.

Raleigh wrote:
Even the thought of them being told something that you disagre with is unbearable to you.

My children were told many things that I disagreed with and I didn’t find it unbearable. I just considered it my responsibility to correct misinformation, wherever it occurred, through a bit of education when I thought it necessary.

And I don’t find it unbearable that children are being told things every day that I disagree with or that are simply wrong. It is unfortunate and in my opinion could and should be remedied, but I am not a hyperactive campaigner for reform, nor an aspiring candidate for supreme judge in this matter. I’ve done my part, my kids are grown, they know the value of education and critical/rational thinking. Hopefully they will pass it on to their children.

Raleigh wrote:
That's how obsessed you are with control.

Hopefully your opinion has changed if you have read this post.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:What is a "New Atheist"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Surprising how easy it is to answer some of these questions. But then, I am skeptical that this is the point of asking them. If you haven't checked out Wikipedia before, it would be worth a look.

Raleigh wrote:
What is a "New Atheist"?

Loud, proud, people without supernatural beliefs that have a tendency to write well enough to get their books published.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Xrayzed...

Actually people have the right to "not" do anything at all. If someone believes that god will heal them if they pray, rather than seeking medical attention, so be it. It's their choice.

So people should be allowed to make choices based on faith over strong evidence based medicine without anyone ever questioning those decisions?

Beg pardon but fuck that shit!!!!