Support NeoGAF

[Laughing Banana]

Haven't read the bible in a long time but there are many references to 'Him' and 'He' when describing God.

Interestingly, in Al-Qur'an there are lots and lots of instances of "We" instead of "I" when the, well, divine entity behind the book, is addressing the reader.

"We speak to you... We do this, We do that..." That kind of stuff.

This question is mainly for atheists: why is indoctrinating children with religious beliefs socially acceptable? Similar types of child abuse are looked down upon, such as raising children to hate all people of a particular race and/or consider them inferior.
If you accept friends who indoctrinate their children with their religion yet reject potential friends who teach their kids to be racist, please explain why.

I feel this is an important thing to discuss that has never been discussed on GAF before. If it has, I'd appreciate a link.

Such a scathing viewpoint towards religion, huh... "indoctrinating", "child abuse", "hate"..... I guess the "general" answer is that it's just human nature that parents will try to transfer their beliefs/values towards their children either deliberately or not. I believe even atheist parents are not exception to this rule, even though they may claim otherwise.

 

[Pollux]

This question is mainly for atheists: why is indoctrinating children with religious beliefs socially acceptable? Similar types of child abuse are looked down upon, such as raising children to hate all people of a particular race and/or consider them inferior.
If you accept friends who indoctrinate their children with their religion yet reject potential friends who teach their kids to be racist, please explain why.

I feel this is an important thing to discuss that has never been discussed on GAF before. If it has, I'd appreciate a link.

Holy shit bro, you have to be kidding me. I can't believe you're actually serious. So let me get this straight, would you agree with Dawkins when he said:

"Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.

You are insane if that's the case. Raising a child within the Church is NOT even comparable to being molested. I'm sorry but you should just stop.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

You are insane if that's the case. Raising a child within the Church is NOT even comparable to being molested. I'm sorry but you should just stop.

So let me get this straight, I'm insane if I'm the way you imagine me to be? Oh ya, well you're insane if you believe you're a Care Bear lol

 

[Kurdel]

Wow you really put him in his place when you supposed he agreed with Dawkins, pulled a quote out of no where and then told him to stop considering physical molestation on the same level as indoctrination.

 

[Pollux]

So let me get this straight, I'm insane if I'm the way you imagine me to be? Oh ya, well you're insane if you believe you're a Care Bear lol

I think you're insane for comparing raising a child within a religious system to raising the child as a racist.

WTF are you even talking about, when did I ever say I believed I'm a care bear

Wow you really put him in his place when you supposed he agreed with Dawkins, pulled a quote out of no where and then told him to stop considering physical molestation on the same level as indoctrination.

Considering Dawkins is the only person I can think of who goes out of his way to shout about indoctrination it seemed like a good comparison to make. Especially considering Bob's disdain for organized religion it seemed like a fair assumption to make.

 

[Lionheart1337]

Such a scathing viewpoint towards religion, huh... "indoctrinating", "child abuse", "hate"..... I guess the "general" answer is that it's just human nature that parents will try to transfer their beliefs/values towards their children either deliberately or not. I believe even atheist parents are not exception to this rule, even though they may claim otherwise.

"Deliberately or not" is a vital point. Many parents will be secular and won't explicitly enforce their positions on their children, on both sides. I do think that there is more of a motive within the religious to do so, however. There are enough pre-existing conditions there that would lead a person to take their child to church, dash water on them, send them to special schools, teach them about the bible, and so on. Atheists are few but I think the reason I don't see this behavior in them, at least not as much, is because there is very little incentive there to nudge children to believe as you do. Atheism is a lack of belief more than a belief itself, so I can't help but feel there is way less motive there. We don't have books or anything that give us divine orders to spread atheism.

 

[Kurdel]

So reading an argument and extrapolating it to it's most extreme form is fair to you?

Forcing religious beliefs on children is immoral IMO. If you are so sure you are right, won't you raise smart enough children who will arrive atthe same conclusion, instead of cramming their tiny heads with your ideas?

Of course not. You need they soft brains to be molded into a copy of yours. Who cares if they don't have the mental capacity to understand the world? Maybe they will keep that childlike wonder when they remember God loves them when they will be older!

 

[Pollux]

So reading an argument and extrapolating it to it's most extreme form is fair to you?

Forcing religious beliefs on children is immoral IMO. If you are so sure you are right, won't you raise smart enough children who will arrive atthe same conclusion, instead of cramming their tiny heads with your ideas?

Of course not. You need they soft brains to be molded into a copy of yours. Who cares if they don't have the mental capacity to understand the world? Maybe they will keep that childlike wonder when they remember God loves them when they will be older!

First of all I asked if he would agree with Dawkins. I never said he did.

 

[Lionheart1337]

Dawkins seems to take kind of a top-down idea that the indoctrination itself outweighs those isolated cases of abuse. It's slippery, but I do think he's touching on something there in suggesting that maybe Catholicism itself played a part in these incidents. Many of the required conditions for these kinds of incidents to happen in the first place, are accommodated by religion (particularly Catholicism) in spades.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

I think you're insane for comparing raising a child within a religious system to raising the child as a racist.

WTF are you even talking about, when did I ever say I believed I'm a care bear

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? When did I ever say it's better to rape your kid than raise him to believe in your religion? Obviously they're both bad, indoctrination is a more common problem and it varies from person to person. But I'd really like to focus on people's acceptance of indoctrination.

 

[Vaporak]

This question is mainly for atheists: why is indoctrinating children with religious beliefs socially acceptable? Similar types of child abuse are looked down upon, such as raising children to hate all people of a particular race and/or consider them inferior.
If you accept friends who indoctrinate their children with their religion yet reject potential friends who teach their kids to be racist, please explain why.

I feel this is an important thing to discuss that has never been discussed on GAF before. If it has, I'd appreciate a link.

It's because religious beliefs are socially acceptable. Back when racism was socially acceptable it was also socially acceptable to teach children to be racist. Generally just about everyone thinks it's a good idea for parents to take part in the educating of their children, but what is considered acceptable education varies wildly across culture. Personally I'm glad my parents kept their religious beliefs to themselves while I was growing up; I didn't even realize that my dad was Buddhist until I was almost in High School.

 

[Pollux]

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? When did I ever say it's better to rape your kid than raise him to believe in your religion? Obviously they're both bad, indoctrination is a more common problem and it varies from person to person. But I'd really like to focus on people's acceptance of indoctrination.

Bro, all I asked was if you would agree with Dawkins. Then said if yes, WTF. You never said that, I just asked if you agreed with it since I wanted to see how far into this hardcore anti "indoctrination" you went.

 

[Laughing Banana]

"Deliberately or not" is a vital point. Many parents will be secular and won't explicitly enforce their positions on their children, on both sides. I do think that there is more of a motive within the religious to do so, however. There are enough pre-existing conditions there that would lead a person to take their child to church, dash water on them, send them to special schools, teach them about the bible, and so on. Atheists are few but I think the reason I don't see this behavior in them, at least not as much, is because there is very little incentive there to nudge children to believe as you do. Atheism is a lack of belief more than a belief itself, so I can't help but feel there is way less motive there. We don't have books or anything that give us divine orders to spread atheism.

That may be so, but I think judging how strong atheists feel (well, I guess I should preface it with "some") against religion in general--small example: this thread--I personally see little to no reason to believe that atheist parents will actually be more "lenient" in "indoctrinating" their children with their values/morals compared to the religious folks. Especially when they see the so-called 'pre-existing conditions'.... if they are already feeling antagonistic towards religions, I think the fact that those conditions do exist will most probably drive them further in installing their atheistic values towards their children.

I maybe too jaded/cynical, but it's just human nature, as simple as that.

Although I suppose in the end all all we can say is "I feel that...." about this matter.

 

[Lionheart1337]

It's because religious beliefs are socially acceptable. Back when racism was socially acceptable it was also socially acceptable to teach children to be racist. Generally just about everyone thinks it's a good idea for parents to take part in the educating of their children, but what is considered acceptable education varies wildly across culture. Personally I'm glad my parents kept their religious beliefs to themselves while I was growing up; I didn't even realize that my dad was Buddhist until I was almost in High School.

I found out my father was a Buddhist recently. And it was my mother who told me.

It's funny because I grew up in a fairly secular upbringing but still chose to identify as a Christian when I was a snot-nose. You can guess what most people around me were in that case. It's an endless cycle of spoon-feeding the youth with faith.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

That may be so, but I think judging how strong atheists feel (well, I guess I should preface it with "some") against religion in general--small example: this thread--I personally see little to no reason to believe that atheist parents will actually be more "lenient" in "indoctrinating" their children with their values/morals compared to the religious folks. Especially when they see the so-called 'pre-existing conditions'.... if they are already feeling antagonistic towards religions, I think the fact that those conditions do exist will most probably drive them further in installing their atheistic values towards their children.

I maybe too jaded/cynical, but it's just human nature, as simple as that.

Although I suppose in the end all all we can say is "I feel that...." about this matter.

Perhaps non-racists are no less "lenient" in indoctrinating their children with their belief that you shouldn't judge a person purely on the color of their skin than racists are in indoctrinating their children to hate all colored folk. I don't think anyone here believes that indoctrination is always a bad thing.

Do you see the difference between indoctrinating your kids not to blindly trust their imagination and experts (whether they're priests, teachers, parents or whoever) and indoctrinating your kid to be a Christian?

 

[Lionheart1337]

That may be so, but I think judging how strong atheists feel (well, I guess I should preface it with "some") against religion in general--small example: this thread--I personally see little to no reason to believe that atheist parents will actually be more "lenient" in "indoctrinating" their children with their values/morals compared to the religious folks. Especially when they see the so-called 'pre-existing conditions'.... if they are already feeling antagonistic towards religions, I think the fact that those conditions do exist will most probably drive them further in installing their atheistic values towards their children.

I maybe too jaded/cynical, but it's just human nature, as simple as that.

Although I suppose in the end all all we can say is "I feel that...." about this matter.

The internet can skew perceptions. As it stands religions have the numbers, therefore the money, the lobbying groups, the buildings, etc. In many ways it is tyranny of the majority. Many people seem to have conjured this myth of a big bad atheist when nothing about our reality suggests this.

Generally speaking, we are all somewhat equally prone to try to instill our morals and values in others. What I want to know is how much religious belief or lack thereof factors into this. I think religious belief would factor more, it suggests and assumes many positives, many absolutes on poor grounds, where atheism tends more to the "I don't know" approach.

There are no "atheistic values" per se. There is no single atheist manifesto. Nothing you can point to and say "those are atheist values" like I can take the Bible for example and say "these are Christian values". I`ll try an analogy: if a child is a blank surface, religion has all the paint ready to impose it's views on a child, and it's that much easier when religion is the more widespread notion.

tldr; If a child is a canvas, folk of faith have larger palettes.

 

[Laughing Banana]

The internet can skew perceptions. As it stands religions have the numbers, therefore the money, the lobbying groups, the buildings, etc. In many ways it is tyranny of the majority. Many people seem to have conjured this myth of a big bad atheist when nothing about our reality suggests this.

Generally speaking, we are all somewhat equally prone to try to instill our morals and values in others. What I want to know is how much religious belief or lack thereof factors into this. I think religious belief would factor more, it suggests and assumes many positives, many absolutes on poor grounds, where atheism tends more to the "I don't know" approach.

There are no "atheistic values" per se. There is no single atheist manifesto. Nothing you can point to and say "those are atheist values" like I can take the Bible for example and say "these are Christian values". I`ll try an analogy: if a child is a blank surface, religion has all the paint ready to impose it's views on a child, and it's that much easier when religion is the more widespread notion.

Well, fair enough I suppose.

 

[KtSlime]

Perhaps non-racists are no less "lenient" in indoctrinating their children with their belief that you shouldn't judge a person purely on the color of their skin than racists are in indoctrinating their children to hate all colored folk. I don't think anyone here believes that indoctrination is always a bad thing.

Do you see the difference between indoctrinating your kids not to blindly trust their imagination and experts (whether they're priests, teachers, parents or whoever) and indoctrinating your kid to be a Christian?

Exactly, I won't even ever bring up the topic of "god" with my kids until they come home one day and ask me what I believe about the topic because they heard about it from someone else. Then I will tell them I don't believe, and that I believe rational thought and observed evidence are the only tools we have to knowing our world. End of discussion. No indoctrination about my non-belief in a god, and if they come to believe in a god via rational thought and observed evidence, then more power to them - it's a personal choice that should be made when one has sufficient understanding of the topic, and the implications of believing.

 

[THRILLH0]

Question for atheists: Do you understand that you're on the outside looking in? Why do you feel you're entitled to answers to your inane stream of questions, particularly when you ask them with a particular brand of disrespect.

I'm not going to explain to you why its not immoral to raise my children in a religious household because you're in a vocal minority that doesn't understand.

Its the same reason I don't have to "back up my beliefs" to you. There's no smoking gun that provides the "proof" you're so desperate for. If someone is willing to listen respectfully, I'm happy to explain my own personal journey and beliefs but beyond that, I don't really owe you anything.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Question for atheists: Do you understand that you're on the outside looking in? Why do you feel you're entitled to answers to your inane stream of questions, particularly when you ask them with a particular brand of disrespect.

I'm not going to explain to you why its not immoral to raise my children in a religious household because you're in a vocal minority that doesn't understand.

Its the same reason I don't have to "back up my beliefs" to you. There's no smoking gun that provides the "proof" you're so desperate for. If someone is willing to listen respectfully, I'm happy to explain my own personal journey and beliefs but beyond that, I don't really owe you anything.

Well... I suppose the original premise for this thread is there are "many" theists that think they can "back up" their faith/belief. You might not be one of those "many", so....

 

[Bungalow Bob]

Exactly, I won't even ever bring up the topic of "god" with my kids until they come home one day and ask me what I believe about the topic because they heard about it from someone else. Then I will tell them I don't believe, and that I believe rational thought and observed evidence are the only tools we have to knowing our world. End of discussion. No indoctrination about my non-belief in a god, and if they come to believe in a god via rational thought and observed evidence, then more power to them - it's a personal choice that should be made when one has sufficient understanding of the topic, and the implications of believing.

Hi. I remember some really good posts from you in a thread about discrimination against sex workers. Do you (or anyone else) have good ideas on how to reduce the percentage of kids who are indoctrinated with religion and/or decrease religious-based discrimination in our society?

 

[Lionheart1337]

Question for atheists: Do you understand that you're on the outside looking in? Why do you feel you're entitled to answers to your inane stream of questions, particularly when you ask them with a particular brand of disrespect.

I'm not going to explain to you why its not immoral to raise my children in a religious household because you're in a vocal minority that doesn't understand.

Its the same reason I don't have to "back up my beliefs" to you. There's no smoking gun that provides the "proof" you're so desperate for. If someone is willing to listen respectfully, I'm happy to explain my own personal journey and beliefs but beyond that, I don't really owe you anything.

You're making your fellow theists look bad. This is exactly the type of attitude I expect from a lot of theists. I wonder what a respectful question is in your eyes.

You underestimate how pervasive religion is. Many atheists, myself included, grew up surrounded by religion. The better question is: Does religion HAVE an outside? Doesn't look it to me.

"I don't have to explain anything, you're in a vocal minority that wouldn't understand anyways! I`m happy to rant about what I believe and why, but as far as explaining and defending it? Fuck that."

 

[KtSlime]

Question for atheists: Do you understand that you're on the outside looking in? Why do you feel you're entitled to answers to your inane stream of questions, particularly when you ask them with a particular brand of disrespect.

I'm not going to explain to you why its not immoral to raise my children in a religious household because you're in a vocal minority that doesn't understand.

Its the same reason I don't have to "back up my beliefs" to you. There's no smoking gun that provides the "proof" you're so desperate for. If someone is willing to listen respectfully, I'm happy to explain my own personal journey and beliefs but beyond that, I don't really owe you anything.

Some people don't think that any ole idea is above questioning. If you claimed that the world was going to be hit by a comet tomorrow, it is only reasonable to ask for evidence as to why you believe such a thing, and why we too should believe. There is no disrespect when we ask you why you believe a comet is going to strike the Earth.

Simply because we are a minority does not mean our stance is wrong, might I point out that there have been many minorities which were thought to be wrong, but turned out to be right - this also does not mean we are correct, since many of us are open to changing our opinions if we get new, valid evidence.

I don't care if you don't want to back up your beliefs, however keep in mind by those standards a person that believes in the Loch Ness Monster does not either, nor does the person that believes blacks are inferior to whites.

Hi. I remember some really good posts from you in a thread about discrimination against sex workers. Do you (or anyone else) have good ideas on how to reduce the percentage of kids who are indoctrinated with religion and/or decrease religious-based discrimination in our society?

I wish I had a good way, however I like to think that hopefully, rational thought will win in the end. I think teaching logic, reliance in empirical evidence, and the scientific method at a young age, in an engaging way in school is our best bet.

 

[Christine]

Its the same reason I don't have to "back up my beliefs" to you.

You're not under any obligation to do so, but if you don't, there's no reason to talk to you about them and no reason not to dismiss them out of hand.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

I wish I had a good way, however I like to think that hopefully, rational thought will win in the end. I think teaching logic, reliance in empirical evidence, and the scientific method at a young age, in an engaging way in school is our best bet.

Hopefully education will soon significantly improve due to technology. I think another thing that would help is if more people let theists know about their disapproval of the religious indoctrination of children.

Are there any religious GAFers who didn't/won't indoctrinate their children? If so, what was it that lead to this decision?

 

[JGS]

Genesis 1 clearly states man and woman were created at the same time in His image. Genesis 2 states man was created first and woman was made from man, not from God. Which of course is not the only problem with Genesis 2. Plants and animals made after man, while in Genesis 1 it is the inverse. You can clearly see they were written in two different time periods.

They may have been written on two separate days but that's as controversial as it gets (There is no change of writing style anyway) would get based on your statement which I've already explained.

Each chapter of the first few chapters carries a different purpose and explains the course of events regarding that particular purpose. This is not unusual in writing.

 

[Kurdel]

First of all I asked if he would agree with Dawkins. I never said he did.

Ok I get it, it is quite logical and fair of you.

So you agree it is socially acceptable for parents to indoctrinate their children into their religion? If you do, do you support the Westoboro Baptist Church? If you do, then you are going too far, man! Not cool bro! You're insane if you do!

 

[Christine]

There is no change of writing style anyway

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is in poetic meter and Genesis 2:4-3:23 is prose, just for starters. There's a decent argument to be made that they're both sourced from the same mosaic oral tradition, but there's no real dispute that the texts were compiled by different authors with different perspectives at different times.

 

[Helscream]

Genesis 1 clearly states man and woman were created at the same time in His image. Genesis 2 states man was created first and woman was made from man, not from God. Which of course is not the only problem with Genesis 2. Plants and animals made after man, while in Genesis 1 it is the inverse. You can clearly see they were written in two different time periods.

Well from what I have learned from my own personal studies.

Genesis Chapter 1 is the account of all of creation. Literally all of creation is ''put it place'' and thus the seventh day he rested because everything was as it should be.

Genesis Chapter 2 is the description of God crowning the apex of all his creation "Man".
Verses 1-3 describes God resting on the seventh day and sanctifying that day for He rested on that the seventh day after which all creation was complete.

Genesis Chapter 3 gives us account of how sin had entered the world, and that which followed behind was death, sickness, evil, pain, and any and every us that could afflict mankind with suffering or sorrow.

Something that I have read before which makes a lot of sense to me is that in Genesis Chapter 1 Man is created, but is still a lifeless vessel of flesh. In Genesis chapter 2 you have the "Spirit of Life" breathed into man and therefore man becomes animated so to speak. Then man is placed into the Garden of Eden. Just as you have the trinity (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) you have the flesh/soul/spirit of man which represents man's tri-unity so to speak.

The "Inverse" you mention is no doubt a subject of great interest. From some things that I have read is that there is the idea that Genesis Chapter 2 gives us a more detailed description of day 6 of creation.

You have to also keep in mind that originally most of the "Books" / "Scrolls" (Written in Hebrew) had no Chapters or Verses and the test just flowed contentiously. The book of Psalms is the only exception as it originally was divided into chapters with titles. So just imagine how the book of Genesis would read without Chapters/Verses.

I think I am going to dig some commentary and see if I can find out more. Hopefully what I posted helped to some degree.

 

[JGS]

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is in poetic meter and Genesis 2:4-3:23 is prose, just for starters. There's a decent argument to be made that they're both sourced from the same mosaic oral tradition, but there's no real dispute that the texts were compiled by different authors with different perspectives at different times.

That would just indicate that the writer knows different writing techniques like other good writers, not that there are different writers.

The writer's style is consistent. Further this simply verifies that chapter 1 isn't meant to blend into chapter 2. Scripture doesn't concern itself with ghost writers so there would be no need to mask differences in writing styles and you give Bible writers way too much credit for being able to pull that off.

As is often the case, there is plenty of dispute about the different writers and if there is a dispute at all it's in connection with the ones bringing up the dispute.

EDIT: Just in case this turns into a semantics debate, I will admit to using improper word choice when describing writing style. The point is that the writer is the same and changing techniques does not mean changing writers at all unless one assumes that the writer is too much of a morn to actually know how to write.

 

[JGS]

Ok I get it, it is quite logical and fair of you.

So you agree it is socially acceptable for parents to indoctrinate their children into their religion? If you do, do you support the Westoboro Baptist Church? If you do, then you are going too far, man! Not cool bro! You're insane if you do!

The two aren't related. It is naturally acceptable to teach your kids what you believe. I would think that atheist would be more concerned with this than anyone. Otherwise you either suck at parenting or you don't believe what you have faith in.

 

[leadbelly]

Thinking like this is a bit of a philosophical error because it wouldn't have been possible for us to ponder this question if we did not observe a Universe just right for us. The error is that it is useless to some degree to ponder that the chance for our universe is so small simply because it is a given that it happened since we're having this discussion. The second error is that there's no reason to assume that our Universe is extra special simply because we are here. Our universe is just perfect for us because our form of life (our form of replicators) could thrive in it. The assertion that hypothetical other universes could not support other forms of replication, some of which very similar to ours, is merely a product of our inability to imagine them rather than factual evidence that it is unlikely. To think of us as special is again being self-centered (which is a human trait that keeps on getting destroyed by cosmology and biology), when we have no reason to believe that we should be.

You're adding this 'thinking we are special' into the discussion btw...

Kind of funny isn't that we can say the universe happened completely by chance because, "here is the evidence". Pondering the idea that maybe it wasn't by chance is a philosophical error though. Interesting that isn't it?

I'm not saying it is or it isn't. You can call it philosophical error, you can call it what you like, the fact of the matter is, it still is what we observe in our universe.

 

[Monocle]

Question for atheists: Do you understand that you're on the outside looking in?

Spoken like a delirious man on the wrong side of a barred window.

Why do you feel you're entitled to answers to your inane stream of questions, particularly when you ask them with a particular brand of disrespect.

It's interesting that you assume your beliefs are worthy of respect in the first place. Authentic respect is granted freely when earned, not proffered as a pacifier to silence bawling.

I'm not going to explain to you why its not immoral to raise my children in a religious household because you're in a vocal minority that doesn't understand.

Because as well we know, the advisability of a practice is directly related to the number of people who approve of it.

Its the same reason I don't have to "back up my beliefs" to you. There's no smoking gun that provides the "proof" you're so desperate for. If someone is willing to listen respectfully, I'm happy to explain my own personal journey and beliefs but beyond that, I don't really owe you anything.

It is most admirable of you to admit that you're not just unwilling but unable to justify your beliefs.

 

[JGS]

Authentic respect is granted freely when earned, not proffered as a pacifier to silence bawling.

This is actually why atheists garner very little respect. They (The vocal ones at least) have primarily shown a proficiency at disrespecting religion. That's hardly the best way to build a resume.

 

[Count Dookkake]

This is actually why atheist garner very little respect. They have primarily shown a proficiency at disrespecting religion. That's hardly the best way to build a resume.

lol

We don't give a shit. We're going to hell and are worse than rapists.

 

[Monocle]

This is actually why atheists garner very little respect. They (The vocal ones at least) have primarily shown a proficiency at disrespecting religion. That's hardly the best way to build a resume.

With very few exceptions, people who demand respect or complain of being disrespected never deserved respect to begin with.

 

[Dude Abides]

That would just indicate that the writer knows different writing techniques like other good writers, not that there are different writers.

This is why Faulkner and Hemingway are indistinguishable. Or e.e. cummings and Shakespeare.

 

[JGS]

With very few exceptions, people who demand respect or complain of being disrespected never deserved respect to begin with.

So the only ones that deserve respect are the ones who don't give it.

in any event, it's a good thing atheists have nothing to be concerned about then.

 

[JGS]

This is why Faulkner and Hemingway are indistinguishable. Or e.e. cummings and Shakespeare.

This has nothing to do with the quote, but nice try as usual at being cutesy.

 

[slidewinder]

What should respect toward religious beliefs on the part of atheists consist of or look like?

 

[Joni]

So you agree it is socially acceptable for parents to indoctrinate their children into their religion? If you do, do you support the Westoboro Baptist Church? If you do, then you are going too far, man! Not cool bro! You're insane if you do!

Will you allow your children to become religious? Or are you going to try to convince them that atheism is the only correct choice?

 

[Count Dookkake]

This has nothing to do with the quote, but nice try as usual at being cutesy.

No, he got you pretty good there.

 

[JGS]

What should respect toward religious beliefs on the part of atheists consist of or look like?

It doesn't consist of anything. No one is requiring respect be given in mass quantities. It's irrelevant that we need atheist respect anyway. It would be nice and it definitely happens in the wilds of reality, but nothing requires it.

If an atheist wants to remain delusional about how dangerous we are to them or society at large, that just affects them.

No, he got you pretty good there.

OK

 

[Christine]

That would just indicate that the writer knows different writing techniques like other good writers, not that there are different writers.

It's not definitive in and of itself, but it's definitely worth citing as it invalidates the following assertion:

The writer's style is consistent.

No, it's not. 1:1-2:3 is considerably more sophisticated and austere than 2:4-3:23--irrespective of the authorship, you're completely wrong on this point. It's also definitely not consistent in its portrayal of god. In a literary sense, they're two different characters. The first narrative features a god who creates from a cosmic perspective, speaking creation into existence, along with a whole race of undifferentiated and unnamed humans. The second has a god who walks on the ground, forms one man out of the dirt of the ground, and breathes life into the man. One god is a "prime mover", the other has feet and hands and lungs. One is infinitely remote, the other intimately personal. One writer is operating from a monotheistic perspective, the other from one of monolatry. They're different in tone, style, and most crucially, theology.

Further this simply verifies that chapter 1 isn't meant to blend into chapter 2.

No, it only demonstrates that chapter 1 doesn't blend into chapter 2. This is exactly what you would expect of a syncretic text. Do you have anything at all to support your assertion of a deliberate intent in repeating the narrative in a different and conflicting style? Can this assertion explain at least five other doublets in Genesis better than the well-supported theory that the book is a compilation of several textual sources?

Scripture doesn't concern itself with ghost writers so there would be no need to mask differences in writing styles and you give Bible writers way too much credit for being able to pull that off.

Not only is there no need to mask differences in writing styles, there's no attempt to do so. I don't know why you even bring this up.

As is often the case, there is plenty of dispute about the different writers

Okay, show it to me.

and if there is a dispute at all it's in connection with the ones bringing up the dispute.

I'm really not sure what this means.

EDIT: Just in case this turns into a semantics debate, I will admit to using improper word choice when describing writing style. The point is that the writer is the same and changing techniques does not mean changing writers at all unless one assumes that the writer is too much of a morn to actually know how to write.

There really isn't anything that indicates this, and plenty that indicates the opposite.

 

[JGS]

It's not definitive in and of itself, but it's definitely worth citing as it invalidates the following assertion:

Hence the apology that didn't work as usual.

No, it's not. 1:1-2:3 is considerably more sophisticated and austere than 2:4-3:23--irrespective of the authorship, you're completely wrong on this point. It's also definitely not consistent in its portrayal of god. In a literary sense, they're two different characters. The first narrative features a god who creates from a cosmic perspective, speaking creation into existence, along with a whole race of undifferentiated and unnamed humans. The second has a god who walks on the ground, forms one man out of the dirt of the ground, and breathes life into the man. One god is a "prime mover", the other has feet and hands and lungs. One is infinitely remote, the other intimately personal. One writer is operating from a monotheistic perspective, the other from one of monolatry.

No I'm not. Your explanation for why I'm wrong is my EXACT explanation. Why would God need to walk around during the creation process? 2 discusses his personal relationship with man. You seem to imply that God can't be a creator and a father figure which are the primary ways he's described.

No, it only demonstrates that chapter 1 doesn't blend into chapter 2. This is exactly what you would expect of a syncretic text. Do you have anything at all to support your assertion of a deliberate intent in repeating the narrative in a different and conflicting style? Can this assertion explain at least five other doublets in Genesis better than the well-supported theory that the book is a compilation of several textual sources?

The support is the text itself. The narrative is only odd for skeptics. A person who actually reads the Bible for instruction &/or pleasure can easily figure this out and would never assume that somebody else came along and took over the writing.

Not only is there no need to mask differences in writing styles, there's no attempt to do so. I don't know why you even bring this up.

The reason is obvious considering that the confluct is there are [at least?] two writers writing the first few chapters of Genesis

Okay, show it to me.

Wat? Are you serious. YOU show me what the heck you're talking about. The standard is one writer, if you have something showing universal dispute, then bring it to my attention. I'm fine where I'm at and converting you to my side is on the agenda.

There really isn't anything that indicates this, and plenty that indicates the opposite.

No there's not. There was never a dispute at all that, whether Moses actually wrote it or not, that the 1st five books were considered one volume ascribed to one writer (Which is repeatedly referred to as Moses).

One of the dumber things I hear is the notion that people are quick to change or add to the Bible on a regular basis, but somehow these morons who are smart enough to write in stuff aren't smart enough to erase "contradictions" (Which isn't the case with the first few chapters of Genesis anyway). There was never a time that more could be implanted in the texts and the writing remains consistent throughout.

 

[Raist]

*cough*

 

[JGS]

You may want to take Nyquil for that of that's what you hock up.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

With very few exceptions, people who demand respect or complain of being disrespected never deserved respect to begin with.

Normally I don't wade into these threads, but since you're touching on the precise reason why don't, I might as well toss in my two cents.

When attempting to discuss matters of such a personal nature (i.e., religion or politics), truly beneficial discussion cannot happen without a modicum of respect between the two parties. I find this generally never happens in the anonymous void of internet forums. By contrast, my brother and I have spent hours upon hours going back and forth about all of this (we were both raised Christian; he rejected the faith in his twenties, whereas I'm almost 30 and have continued to fully embrace it). We are still friends, and will always be friends - not just because we share blood, but because we have mutual respect and don't immediately discount each other's dissenting opinion.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't believe that this or any other anonymous forum can provide that sort of environment.

 

[Christine]

Why would God need to walk around during the creation process?

I don't know why he needs to, but it's an indisputable fact that he does in the text.

You seem to imply that God can't be a creator and a father figure which are the primary ways he's described.

I'm not implying a single thing about God. I'm talking about a book. Text. But I'll get back to that.

The support is the text itself.

Even if the text made the single author assertion (it doesn't), that wouldn't constitute support.

A person who actually reads the Bible for instruction &/or pleasure can easily figure this out and would never assume that somebody else came along and took over the writing.

This is exactly what happened. People who cared deeply about the Bible, reading it for instruction, pleasure, illumination, and adoration found that they were utterly unable to reconcile the realities of the text with the hypothesis of single authorship, and eventually disproved that hypothesis beyond any shadow of a doubt.

The standard is one writer

Standard? Who promulgates this standard? What supports it? What indicates it? Do you even know where this assertion is made?

Spoiler

I do

if you have something showing universal dispute, then bring it to my attention.

The only contemporary dispute is between the documentary hypothesis, the supplementary hypothesis, and the fragmentary hypothesis, all of which involve at least four separate sources and primarily disagree about the length of time over which the text was compiled, added to, deleted from, and otherwise revised. Single authorship died before the '70s, man.

One of the dumber things I hear is the notion that people are quick to change or add to the Bible on a regular basis, but somehow these morons who are smart enough to write in stuff aren't smart enough to erase "contradictions" (Which isn't the case with the first few chapters of Genesis anyway). There was never a time that more could be implanted in the texts and the writing remains consistent throughout.

You're an idolater. (I said I'd get back to that). None of the arguments I've made are even remotely inconsistent with the premise of divine inspiration or revelation. Everything I've said is perfectly compatible with the idea that every word of the bible is the living will of God and that it is His perfect scripture as He intended.

But no--it's not even just that you're worshipping a book instead of a god. That's not good enough; the book also has to be written exactly according to your beliefs, or everything falls apart for you. You're dogmatically and uncompromisingly committed to the single author of the books of Moses, and that's why you can never admit or see that the writing isn't even close to consistent.

What a tiny god you have.

 

[slidewinder]

When attempting to discuss matters of such a personal nature (i.e., religion or politics), truly beneficial discussion cannot happen without a modicum of respect between the two parties.

"Beneficial" meaning what? Making you feel good about yourself? If not, then what: say it.